Karnataka Court April 1971 Judgments
K.G. Jagannath Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant342; AIR1971Mys342; (1971)2MysLJ384
Govinda Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner who is a stage carriage operator has challenged In this writ petition the validity of Rule 216 (2) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules. 1963, hereinafter called the 'Rules' on two grounds: (1) that it is ultra vires of Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, hereinafter called the 'Act' and (2) that it violates his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and therefore void.2. Rule 216 as it stood prior to its substitution by notification No. GSR 360 dated 7th October. 1969 (HD 42 TMR 68) had provided only for limiting the maximum seating accommodation of public service vehicles other than motor cabs. Rule 216 as substituted by the said notification reads as follows:'216. Limit of Seating Capacity:-- (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 214 regarding seating accommodation, the number of passengers excluding the driver and conductor that a Public Service Vehicle other than a Motor cab, may be permitted to carr...
Tag this Judgment!K. Burman Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MysLJ379; [1971]28STC637(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, C.J.1. The first respondent, one of the Commercial Tax Officer of Calcutta, West Bengal, made an order of assessment against the petitioner under section 11(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, on the 24th of September, 1967, under which he determined the taxable turnover of the petitioner for the two years from 1st January, 1955, to 31st December, 1956, at Rs. 4,00,000 and tax payable thereon at Rs. 18,750. He also imposed a penalty under section 11(2) of the Act for non-registration on the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 2,500. Pursuant thereto, he issued a notice of demand to the petitioner in form No. VII prescribed under the said Bengal Act. As the petitioner did not pay the demand, the first respondent issued a certificate for collection thereof under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, to the second respondent, the Collector of 24 Parganas, West Bengal. The second respondent in his turn issued a certificate under section 3 of the Revenue Reco...
Tag this Judgment!Fitter Peera Saheb Vs. K. Balachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant14; AIR1972Mys14; (1971)2MysLJ113
ORDERD.M. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. This Revision Petition under Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act. 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is by a tenant against whom a decree for eviction was made by the Munsiff at Bellary and affirmed by the District Judge at Bellary. The petitioner and the respondents will hereinafter be referred to respectively as the tenant and the landlords. 2. The premises are occupied bythe tenant for his residence. Though the landlords sought for eviction of the tenant on three grounds, the decree for eviction has been only on the ground specified in Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21, namely, the premises being reasonably and bona fide required by the landlords for their occupation. The landlords claimed that the premises were required to provide additional accommodation for their business of manufacturing ready-made garments. 3. Mr. P. G. C. Chengappa. learned counsel for the petitioner, urged the following contentions in this petition. (1)...
Tag this Judgment!T. Sathyanarayana Vs. the State Transport Authority in Mysore (by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant11; AIR1972Mys11; (1971)1MysLJ541
A. Narayana Pai, C.J. 1. Because the learned counsel in the course of the arguments on an interlocutory application to vacate the interim order agreed that the main matter itself may be heard and disposed of. we have heard. full arguments on the merits of the case.2. The petitioner, who is operating a stage carriage service from Mysore to Calicut impugns the contract carriage permit granted by the first respondent State Transport Authority in Mysore to the. second respondent in respect of a route from Bangalore to Calicut via Mysore and back along the same route.3. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel Mr. Rangaswamy are three in number:(1) That the application itself was not in accordance with Section 49 of the Act and that therefore no order could have been passed on it. (2) that the permit does not contain any condition to make it clear that the contract carriage shall not be utilised as a stage carriage, and (3) that the Transport Authority has ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangaram Bangale Vs. Balgouda Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant17; AIR1972Mys17
ORDERH.B. Datar, J. 1. The petitioner is the landlord and filed an application under Sec'tion 14(1) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of the land R. S. No. 337/15 measuring 2 acres and 13 guntas assessed at Rs. 5/- situated at Sarnbra village, Beleaum District. The claim made by the landlord was that the land is bona fide required by him for his personal cultivation and that the income from the suit land will be the principal source for his maintenance. The Land Tribunal, Belgaum, raised two points for consideration. They are: (1) Does the applicant prove that he requires bona fide the land in dispute for his personal cultivation; and (2) If yes, what is the extent of the land to which he is entitled for resumption under the amended provisions of Section 16(10B) of M. L. R. Act. 1961? It held that the petitioner is entitled to resume half of disputed land R. S. No. 337/15 measuring 2 acres and 13 gunthas assessed at Rs. 5/--For arriving at this conclusion, the Land Tr...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Srinivasachari and anr. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Kant66; AIR1972Mys66; (1971)2MysLJ189
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The petitioners are goldsmiths carrying on their profession at Robertsonpet in the Kolar Gold Fields. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have prayed for (i) a declaration that Sections 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Mysore Mines Act, 1906 are illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional; (ii) quashing the licences issued to them by the Ex Officio I Class Magistrate, Kolar; and (iii) a mandamus directing the State of Mysore not to interfere with their carrying on their profession as goldsmiths.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of these Writ Petitions, it is necessary to set out certain provisions of the Mysore Mines Act, and the conditions of the license which goldsmiths are required to take in order to carry on their profession in the Kolar Gold Fields.3. The Mysore Mines Act, 1906, was enacted by His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore, the then Ruler of the former State of Mysore. That Act was intended to consolidate and amend the law relatin...
Tag this Judgment!Fundabai Alias Saraswathibai and ors. Vs. Ramanagouda Mallanagouda Pat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Kant312; AIR1971Mys312
M. Sadanandaswamy, J.1. The appellants are defendants: the respondents are plaintiffs. The suit was filed for possession of S. No. 376 Muthalageri village, Badami Taluk, along with a house and a site on the ground that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the same as mortgagees under the deed of mortgage Exhibit 78, dated 9-9-1941. The first defendant is the husband of the first appellant (Defendant 1-A) and father of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant-1 had mortgaged the suit properties in favour of the father of plaintiffs. Defendant 6 is the mother of the plaintiffs. The deed of mortgage provides that the consideration of the mortgage is Rupees 1,500/-; that the mortgagee should be in possession for a period of 9 years, the nature of mortgage being a self redeeming mortgage. According to the case of the plaintiffs the mortgagee was dispossessed after three years from the date of mortgage, though he was entitled to possession for a period of 9 years. The suit was filed on 15-12-19...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›