Karnataka Court October 1974 Judgments
Y.R. Raju and anr. Vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant171; 1975(1)KarLJ401
ORDER1. These two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arise out of the common order dated 14th September, 1972 made in Appeal No. 189 of 1970 (MV) on the file of the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore.2. The facts leading up to these petitions are these :Respondents 4 and 5 jointly filed an application on 28th March, 1963, before the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, for a permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Kelamangala to Bangalore and back. The said application was published in the Gazette inviting representations from the public. Among those who filed the representations opposing the grant of permit was, one Y. K. Rudrappa, father of the petitioner in W. P. No. 2496 of 1972. The petitioner in W. P. No. 2497 of 1972 also filed his representation. The Regional Transport Authority, after considering the representations, refused to grant the permit to the applicants by its Resolution dated 10th December, 1965. The Regional Transport A...
Tag this Judgment!S.R.M.S. Tourist Service Co. and ors. Vs. the Secretary, Regional Tran ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR621
ORDER1. These petitions raise a short but not, to my mind, an easy point The question is, whether a special permit in relation to a public service vehicle granted under Section 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act, falls within the meaning of a contract carriage permit.2. All that I need state the facts are: The petitioners are operators of stage carriage or contract carriage services in the State of Karnataka. Often they undertake to carry tourist passengers or marriage parties to various places both inside and outside the State. They applied to the Secretary. Regional Transport Authority of their respective jurisdiction under Section 63 (6), to grant special permits for a couple of days to (Contd. on Col. 2) convey tourists from place to place. But the Regional Transport Officer rejected their applications on the sole ground that he has no jurisdiction to grant special permit since there is a Scheme published under Section 68-C of the Act proposing to na...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Laxmi Touring Talkies and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR481; 1975(1)KarLJ419
ORDER1. The petitioners are exhibitors of touring cinemas. They had been granted licences for running touring cinemas in different places. They had applied for re-grant of such licences for continuing to run the touring cinemas in those respective places. The licensing authority declined to re-grant such licence to the petitioner in W. P. 4219 of 1974. The applications of other petitioners for re-grant of their respective licences, are pending before the Licensing Authority.2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for striking down Rules 11 and 16 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (First Amendment) Rules, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Rules) as unconstitutional. The petitioner in W. P. No. 4219 of 1974 has also prayed for quashing the order of the Licensing Authority declining to re-grant the licence to him. The petitioners have also Brayed for issue of mandamus directingthe Licensing Authorities to consider and deci...
Tag this Judgment!Balawant Shamrao Deshpande Vs. Sadashiv Haripant Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant47; ILR1975KAR313; 1975(1)KarLJ386
Malimath, J. 1. This second appeal has come a before us on a reference made by Justice Venkataswami by his order dated 22nd November, 1972, on the ground that there is some conflict between the decisions of this Court in the case reported in (1965) 1 Mys LJ 100 between Parvathi Bai v. Damodar Anant Hegde and the unreported decision in Ex. Second Appeal No. 100 of 1966 between Situ Hengsu v. B. Kamalabai decided on 14-4-1967 (Mys.) on the question of applicability of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 to pending proceedings.2. Respondents 1 to 6 instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 377 of 1964 in the Court of the Munsiff at Belgaum on the 25th of August, 1964 for possession of the suit house situate in Madhavpur and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 280, alleging that the appellant-defendant is a monthly tenant under them and that his tenancy has been duly terminated. The Ist Additional Munsiff, Belgaum made a decree for possession and arrears of rent of Rs. 217 with i...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramana Ganesh Bhat Vs. Visveswar Venkataramana Heggade Motinsar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR553; 1975(1)KarLJ236
1. This appeal is by the third defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff-first respondent herein, against the order dated 19-12-1973 of the Civil Judge, North Kanara at Karwar. The plaintiff brought the suit claiming that himself and defendants 1 and 2 were co-owners of Sy. No. 56 of Husari village and that he was entitled to 5/16th share. Defendants 1 and 2 did not deny the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim against the third defendant was that he was a trespasser. Defendants 1 and 2 stated that they along with the plaintiff had leased out the land to the third defendant. Upon this the suit was decreed. In appeal the judgment and decree were set aside and the case was remanded. During the pendency of the suit after remand the first defendant died on 22-12-1972. A memo was filed by the second defendant on 3-4-1973 to that effect. Even then, the plaintiff did not make an application to bring the legal representatives of the first defendant on record. When the case was posted...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chandrashekara Naik and anr. Vs. Narayana and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant18; 1974(2)KarLJ433
1. The Division Bench of this Court which heard the appeal, has referred to the Full Bench the following question:--In an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are cross-objections by a respondent maintainable?2. In Harathi Adirajaiah v. Savandamma, (1973) 1 Mys LJ 247 = (AIR 1973 Mys 213) and A. Rahman v. Wabber, (1973) 1 Mys LJ 376 = (1973 Cri LJ 1682) two Division Benches of this Court have taken the view that in an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') cross-objections cannot be filed invoking the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 C. P. C.3. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Varanasi v. Gauri Shanker : [1968]1SCR372 , the Division Bench which has referred the above Question to a Full Bench, was of the opinion that the above rulings of this Court require reconsideration.4. Mr. B. P. Holla, learned Advocate for the first respondent, contended that in view of the pronouncement of ...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR252; 1975(1)KarLJ333
ORDER1. Because a common question of law arises for consideration in these cases, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in these cases are holders of permits issued under Sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') to ply tourist vehicles throughout India. The permits are issued by making endorsements on the contract carriage permits which the petitioners already held in respect of the vehicles. The said endorsements purport to have been made under Rule 123 (A) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. One of the conditions imposed by the State Transport Authority which made the endorsements under Sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Act is that the petitioners should not enter into any fresh contract of hiring other than the extension or modification of a subsisting contract outside the State of Karnataka. Aggrieved by the imposition of the above condition the petitioners have filed these petitions.3. It is stated that Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Thunga Bai and ors. Vs. Vishalakshi Heggadthi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR739; 1974(2)KarLJ484
ORDER1. This revision petition by the plaintiffs arises out of their application for temporary injunction in a suit filed for permanent injunction. The trial Court issued an ad interim order of injunction which was subsequently dissolved and that order wasaffirmed on appeal by the learned Civil Judge, Udipi. The question is whether that order calls for interference in revision by this Court,2. The subject-matter of the suit is an agricultural holding in a locality called Shettibettu in Herga village of Udipi Taluk in the District of South Kanara. That holding described in the plaint A schedule comprises of 4 acres 37 cents of wet lands and 4 acres 38 cents of Punja lands with a farm house and appurtenant buildings. The said properties belonged to an Aliyasantana family of which defendant 1 was a member. In the partition effected in the said family in some year after 1965, the suit A schedule properties were allotted to the share of defendant 1. Before the date of the said partition, th...
Tag this Judgment!J. Mohanlal and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant114; 1975(1)KarLJ229
ORDER1. The petitioners in these petitions are carrying on business as Pawn Brokers. They have filed these petitions requesting the Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents directing them not to enforce Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against them in so far as the said section requires the making of declarations by the petitioners regarding the quantity of gold received by them in the course of their business. The relevant part of Section 16 of the Act reads as follows:'16. DECLARATIONS AS TO ARTICLES OR ORNAMENTS: (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, every person who owns or is in possession, custody or control of, any articles or ornaments at the commencement of this Act, or acquires the ownership, possession, custody or control of any articles or ornament thereafter, shall make, within thirty days from such commencement or from such acquisition, as the case may be, OB within such further period as t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›