Karnataka Court June 1975 Judgments
E. Keshavayya Vs. R. Narasima Prabhu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant41; 1975(2)KarLJ232
ORDER1. This revision petition is under section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. It is essentially concerned with the validity of the notice to quit issued by the landlord to his tenant. From the facts I select those necessary for my decision.2. By Ext. P-3 the lease deed dated 15th October, 1948, the premises belonging to the petitioner ('the landlord') were leased to respondent 1 ('the tenant') for a period of 10 years on an annual rent at Rs. 100/- payable by the 15th of October every year. It was agreed there under that the tenant could use the premises for the purpose of his timber trade with liberty to put up any temporary shed or building in connection with that trade; but after the period of lease he should remove the construction at his own cost and surrender the vacant premises. The lease contained a stipulation regarding the notice. It stated that if the landlord wanted the premises after 5 years from the date of the lease for the purpose of constructing a house f...
Tag this Judgment!Shankara Apaya Swami Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, Belgaum and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR649(KAR); [1976]103ITR649(Karn)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The petitioner in these two writ petitions was an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), during the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. He filed the returns pertaining to those two assessment years beyond the prescribed time. The Wealth-tax Officer, being of the opinion that there was no reasonable cause for filing the returns beyond time, made an order under the provisions of section 18(1)(a) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay penalties as provided by law. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Wealth-tax Officer levying the penalties, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Wealth-tax with applications under sub-section (2A) of section 18 of the Act, requesting him to exercise his discretion and to reduce or waive the amount of penalties imposed on him. The Commissioner rejected both the applications. While doing so, he observed as follows : 'From 1969-70 onwards there was no reason why he should have dela...
Tag this Judgment!The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ports, Mangalore Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant99; ILR1976KAR302; 1975(2)KarLJ484
Bhat, C.J.1. The appeal is by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Port, Mangalore, against the award and decree dated 30-1-1969 in 0. P. No, 525 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore.2. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Gazette on 27-7-1963, lands situate in Mudushedde village of Mangalore Taluk were acquired. The lands acquired were: 2 acres 72 cents of wet-I land in S. No. 25/4-A; 1 acre 70 cents of wet-I land in S. No. 25/5-A. 36 cents of wet-III land in S. No. 25/3-A and 7 acres 19 cents of dry land in S. No. 30/1-A. It may be mentioned here that out of 7 acres and 19 cents of dry lend, there is a quarry over an extent of 4 acres and 29 cents, and the remaining extent of 2 acres and 90 cents is only a dry land.3. The claimants claimed compensation at Rs. 10,000/- an acre for wet-I land, at Rs. 4,000/- an acre for wet-III land, and at R9. 10,000/- an acre for dry land in addition to the value of gr...
Tag this Judgment!V. Lakshmiah and ors. Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ398
ORDERS.R. Range Gowda, J.1. On a report made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemgal, to take action under Section 145 of the Criminal P.C. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kolar Sub-Division, in case No. C. M. C. 12/75, passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Criminal P.C. on 24-2-1975 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 179 of Rajakallaball village measuring 2-20 acres, 4 Eucalyptus, trees, and the harvested Ragi crop stocked in the thrashing yard of Chikkappiah. On the same day he passed another order under Section 146, Criminal P. C, appointing the Tahsildar of Kolar Taluk as Receiver and authorising him to attach and take possession of the said land and the harvested Ragi crop stocked in the thrashing yard of Chikkap-paiah. In this revision petition, what the petitioners who are members of the Second Party have challenged is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was clearly in error in passing the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) and also an order under Section 146, C...
Tag this Judgment!Y.R. Raju and anr. Vs. the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1975
Reported in: 1975(2)KarLJ168
1. These two appeals are from the common order of Jagannatha Shetty, J., in Writ Petitions Nos. 2496 and 2497 of 1972 = (Reported in : AIR1975Kant171 ). The appellants were the petitioners therein.2. K. Muniswamy and Syed Ibrahim, respondents 4 and 5 respectively, had made an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.A.) for grant of a permit to operate a stage carriage between Kelamangala and Bangalore. Kelamangala being in Tamil Nadu. the route between these two places is an inter-State route. When the R.T.A. notified that application, Y. K. Rudrappa, father of the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 870 of 1974, who was one of the operators, over a section of that route, and Choodappa, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 871 of 1974. who was one of the operators over a section of that route, filed their objections before the R.T.A. against grant of such permit. After considering the objections, the R.T.A. by its resolution, rejected th...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Telephone Industries and ors. Vs. Regional Transport Officer, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Kant211; 1975(2)KarLJ345
1. In these three appeals, the question that arises for determination is whether an omnibus engaged by an employer for transporting exclusively his employees between their houses and his factory, for which service he (the employer) collect fares from his employees, should be treated as a contract carriage or merely an omnibus for She purpose of levy of tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The appellants who were the writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Companies) are Government Companies in which all the shares are held by the State. Their factories arc located in the outskirts at Bangalore. Each of them has been maintaining a fleet of omnibuses to provide transport facility to its employees between their houses and its factory. For providing such transport facility, they collect fares from their respective employees by deducting such fares from their salaries or wages. Such fares are small compared to the cost o...
Tag this Judgment!Eric A. Suares Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant134; 1975(2)KarLJ155
ORDER1. The petitioner in the above writ petition has questioned the validity of the provisions of Section 7 (ii) of the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). The petitioner is a tenant of a premises situated in Civil Station Bangalore and respondent-2 is the landlord of the said premises. The 2nd respondent instituted proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka House Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in H. R. C. No. 471/1972 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore. The said petition was allowed by the learned Munsiff directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within four months by his order dated 9-4-1975. The petitioner had a right of appeal under Section 48 of the Act against the order of the learned Munsiff and the said right came to be vested in him when the petition was filed in the Court of the Munsiff. But, on 22nd May, 1975, t...
Tag this Judgment!J. Nandanlal Javantaraj Vs. V. Narayanaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Kant237; 1975(2)KarLJ145
ORDER1. This is a petition for review of my order dated 13/14-8-1974 in C. R. P. No. 1423 of 1973, a revision petition under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner herein was the respondent in revision petition while the respondent herein was the petitioner therein. For the sake of convenience they will be referred to hereinafter as the landlord and the tenant respectively. 2. The landlord had made an application under Section 21 of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the petition premises on the ground that he required the premises for his (the landlord's) own occupation. The front portion of the petition premises was being used by the tenant for carrying on his business and he was residing in the rear portion of the premises. In the revision petition I made a decree for eviction of the tenant from the residential portion and refused eviction from the non-residential portion of the premises. 3. In this petition, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa Bhimappa Kulgod and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Kant215; ILR1976KAR80; 1975(2)KarLJ359
ORDER1. The petitioners in these four writ petitions are manufacturers of cloth on power-looms belonging to them. The number of power-looms owned by each of the petitioners is less than five. Aggrieved by the notification issued by the Textile Commissioner on November 9, 1966, which had the effect of prohibiting the petitioners from manufacturing coloured sarees, the petitioners have filed these petitions for the issue of a writ quashing the said notification to the extent it prohibited them from manufacturing coloured sarees and directing the respondents not to enforce the said notification as against them.2. Before the commencement of the Constitution, there was a law in force in British India dealing with the production and distribution of essential commodities by the name the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. Cotton and Woollen textiles were listed as one of the essential commodities under Section 2(a)(i) of the said Act. Section 3 of the said Act provided that the C...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalabai and ors. Vs. Sayyad Fakir and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant136; 1975(2)KarLJ140
1. This appeal preferred under Order 43, Rule 1 (k) of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of an the Civil Judge, Karwar Applications Nos. 1 to IV No. 571 of 1965 holding has abated consequent on the failure of the appellants to bring on record the legal representatives of one of the respondents therein.2. The facts leading up to the appeal are these:Sayyad Hanif Shah and his wife Imambu executed two mortgage deeds in respect of certain property on 28th February, 1882 and 25th January, 1883. They died before redeeming the mortgages. The dispute arose among the persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the mortgagors as to who should redeem the mortgages. A suit for declaration was instituted in the Munsiff's Court, Haliyal stating that the plaintiffs together with defendants 5 to 7 are the heirs entitled to redeem the mortgages, The appellants before me resisted the said suit contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are not the heirs of the mortgagors, The trial court decreed the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »