Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: karnataka Year: 1995 Page 1 of about 27 results (0.006 seconds)

Dec 06 1995 (HC)

Sapathagiri Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-06-1995

Reported in : ILR1996KAR2991

..... 1991-92, which almost double the rate adopted in the years 1992-93 to 1994-95. some good reasons must have been set forth by the state government supporting the rationale adopted in fixing such fee. unless good reasons are forthcoming, the action of the state cannot be stated to be supported by reason or informed by reason. therefore, we find ..... -92 the same was reduced with effect from 1.7.1992 to rs. 2,50,000/- in respect of distilleries which manufacture any spirit out of molasses. there was no rationale in fixing of this fee for in the previous year it was only rs. 2 lakhs and in the subsequent years it was only rs. 2.5 lakhs while only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1995 (HC)

Paduthota Ramachandra and Others Etc. Vs. Union of India and Another E ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-14-1995

Reported in : AIR1996Kant282; ILR1995KAR2712; 1995(5)KarLJ356

..... karnataka. the petitioners claimed that as the action of the state government in identifying the synonyms names for certain scheduled castes was approved by the central government, there is no rationale why synonyms names identified by the government of karnataka in respect of kotegar or metri should also not be approved and benefit given to the members of sub-caste who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1995 (HC)

Krishnamurthy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-11-1995

Reported in : ILR1996KAR1258

..... , the notification published under section 125 of the act shall be deemed to have been lapsed and the authorities are devoid of jurisdiction to proceed further is not tenable. the rationale adopted by their lordships is that wherever the legislature intended to apply specific procedure or the fetters in exercising the power under the central act, it did no specifically. after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1995 (HC)

Raghavendra Ranga Pai Vs. Vishwanatha Pai

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-04-1995

Reported in : ILR1995KAR2664; 1995(6)KarLJ588

..... about the jurisdiction of the subordinate authority disentitled him invoke the writ jurisdiction of the high court, does not rest on the foundation that acquiescence, confers jurisdiction but on the rationale that the high court will be justified in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a person who has either by reason of jack of diligence or by design .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1995 (HC)

Mumtaz Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-01-1995

Reported in : ILR1996KAR77; 1995(5)KarLJ117

ordersaldanha, j 1. this petition can conveniently be disposed of at this stage as both the learned advocates representing the petitioner as also the karnataka electricity board have been heard completely. the grievance projected by the petitioner who is a widow of a lineman who had met with an accidental death in the year 1983, is that her application for compassionate employment has been turned down by the board. the order of the board that is impugned is dated 10.07.1992 and states that since the death has occurred on 23.08.1993, that the application can not be considered at this point of time. it is necessary for me to record here that the board had promulgated a scheme for compassionate employment in deserving cases where an employee had met with sudden death and consequently where the family was reduced to penury as a result thereof. the scheme envisaged that the application for compassionate employment of a dependent family member had to be made to the board within a period of 3 years which period was subsequently increased to 5 years. the objective behind prescribing this limitation was self-evident in so far as it is the intention behind the scheme to provide urgent and immediate succour to the dependents of the deceased employee who are otherwise in a condition of extreme poverty as a result of the death of the bread-winner. over a period of time, the circumstances do get altered and therefore it is not expedient to keep the benefit open for an abnormally long time. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1995 (HC)

Parameshwarappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-25-1995

Reported in : ILR1996KAR252; 1996(5)KarLJ256

ordersaldanha, j.1. this group of petitions raises one common point which is one both of interest as also of considerable legal significance. i refer to the latter aspect of the matter for the reason that the petitioners are members of the teaching profession and there are several similarly situated persons to whom this judgment will apply even though they may not have moved this court through specific petitions. briefly stated, the question that is posed for decision is as to whether the u.g.c. scales of salary that were made applicable with effect from 1.1.86 would apply to lecturers who are attached to the pre university course (hereinafter referred to as the 'p.u.c.'). the objection on the part of the government is a two fold one. in the first instance, it is contended that the p.u.c. has nothing to do with the university in so far as even the examination is conducted by a separate board and that therefore, the petitioners do not come within the categorisation of university teachers. the second contention that is raised is that the p.u.c. is run by what is known as the junior college and that this institution is distinguishable from the regular college which conducts the degree courses. the government has contended therefore that viewed at from either angle, the petitioners cannot be categorised as university teachers and if this is the position, that the u.g.c. scales will not and cannot apply to them. the petitioners who are aggrieved by this decision have moved this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1995 (HC)

Rajani Vs. Management of Syndicate Bank

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-16-1995

Reported in : ILR1995KAR2943

ordertirath s. thakur, j1. that transfer is an incident of service is fairly well settled. courts have seldom interfered with such orders except in cases where the same are vitiated by mala fides or are opposed to any mandatory, statutory rule. the legal position is no longer resintegra having been authoritatively stated by the apex court in b. varada rao v. state of karnataka : (1986)iillj516sc ; shilpi bose v. state of bihar : (1991)iillj591sc and union of india v. s.l abbas : (1993)iillj626sc . in the last mentioned judgment, the supreme court went a step further and held that guidelines issued by the employer regulating transfer of the employees did not create any legally enforceable right in the employees and even when such guidelines were not followed while issuing orders of transfers, the courts cannot interfere.2. the position is no different when it comes to employees of the public sector banks like the respondent herein. even there the matters stand concluded by the apex court by its judgments in canara banking corporation v. vittal1963 (2) llj 354 and syndicate bank limited v. workmen : (1966)illj440sc . in both these cases, the view taken is that the management of a bank is in the best position to decide as to how it should distribute its man power and whether a particular transfer can or cannot be avoided. interference with such orders of transfers by courts and industrial tribunals has been held permissible only in case the orders are made mala fide or for some .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1995 (HC)

Sri Shanidevara Seva Mandali Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore City Corporat ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-05-1995

Reported in : ILR1995KAR3579; 1995(5)KarLJ523

saldanha, j.1. heard appellant's learned advocate.2. this appeal was argued on an earlier occasion and was fixed for further arguments today. the appellant's learned advocate has submitted that the disputed structure as far as the present appeal is concerned is a small temple which admittedly was constructed several years back. there has been some past litigation in this regard, but that was by some other persons and not by the present appellants who are as of now looking after the temple. his basic submission is that the area is alleged to have been acquired several years back, but that the possession of the same was never taken over and in this regard, he submits that even if some acquisition proceedings were commenced, that they have not reached the stage of finality and that the appellants are entitled to protection in so far as they were never dispossessed from the property in question. he elaborates on his submission because, he has referred to the provisions of the land acquisition act and the scheme thereof and it is his contention that there are different stages to the acquisition the last of which is that the possession be taken over and the compensation be paid and it is his submission that even if the authorities contend that all stages have been completed, but the physical situation demonstrates that the possession was never taken over, that the rights do subsist vis-a-vis the aspect of possession and that therefore, there can be no demolition except through due .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1995 (HC)

Subramanya Vs. Chairman and Managing Director

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-16-1995

Reported in : ILR1995KAR3434

ordertirath s. thakur, j 1. in this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question his compulsory retirement from the service of the respondent-bank in consequence of a disciplinary enquiry held against him. he also challenges the vires of regulations 3 and 24 of the indian-bank officers employees (conduct) regulations 1976, (for short the conduct regulations) and the legality of his suspension pending enquiry. the facts in the background are brief and may be stated first.2. the petitioner was working as manager of the new timber yard layout branch of the respondent-bank at bangalore. he was served with a chargesheet accusing him of misconduct within the meaning of regulation 3(1) read with regulation 24 of the conduct regulations. the petitioner's reply to the charges was found unsatisfactory resulting in the initiation of a formal enquiry. the inquiry officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved. the disciplinary authority, then passed an order on 21st of april 1992 accepting the findings returned by the inquiring authority that the petitioner had allowed temporary over-drafts and clear loans far beyond his discretionary powers, and had acted in total disregard of the prescribed procedure for the grant of open cash credits and allowed the borrowers to divert the bank's funds for acquiring fixed assets. it also concurred with the finding that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1995 (HC)

S.R. Subramanya Vs. Indian Bank and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-16-1995

Reported in : 1995(5)KarLJ531; (1996)IILLJ1143Kant

tirath s. thakur, j.1. in this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question his compulsory retirement from the service of the respondent bank in consequence of a disciplinary enquiry held against him. he also challenges the vires of regulations 3 and 24 of the indian bank officer employees' (conduct) regulations 1976 (for short 'the conduct regulations'), and the legality of his suspension pending enquiry. the facts in the background are brief and may be stated first. 2. the petitioner was working as a manager of the new timber yard layout branch of the respondent bank at bangalore. he was served with a charge-sheet accusing him of misconduct within the meaning of regulation 3(1) read with regulation 24 of the conduct regulations. the petitioner's reply to the charges was found unsatisfactory resulting in the initiation of a formal enquiry. the inquiry officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved. the disciplinary authority then passed an order on april 21, 1992, accepting the findings returned by the inquiring authority that the petitioner had allowed temporary overdrafts and clear loans far beyond his discretionary powers, and had acted in total disregard of the prescribed procedure for the grant of open cash credits and allowed the borrowers to divert the bank's funds for acquiring fixed assets. it also concurred with the finding that the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //