Karnataka Court February 1977 Judgments
Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1977
Reported in: ILR1977KAR635; 1977(1)KarLJ291; (1978)ILLJ78Kant
Tewatia, J.1. This appeal arises out of Writ Petition No. 7948 of 1976 filed by the appellant challenging there in an order dated 10-9-1976 annexed to the petition as Ext. B, whereby the Government had ordered the continuance of the suspension of the appellant for a further period of three months or till the dated of the completion of the enquiry whichever event occurred first.2. In order to appreciate the import of the challenge to the impugned order, a few relevant facts which are not in dispute may be noticed. These can be stated thus : The appellant, a Labour Inspector, was suspended by the Labour Commissioner pending enquiry against him by his order dated 2-7-75. On the very day, the Labour Commissioner sanctioned subsistence allowance to the appellant by order Ext. D. The Government on being apprised by the Labour Commissioner that the enquiry initiated by him against the appellant was unlikely to be completed before the expiry of six months from the date of suspension it passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Meghraj and ors. Vs. B. Seshagiri Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant163; ILR1977KAR881; 1977(1)KarLJ266
ORDER1. The sole question raised in this revision petition relates to the validity of the quit notice issued by the petitioners.2. The facts which are not now in dispute are:The respondent has taken the premises for opening a shop called 'Planters Coffee Works' in which he is engaged in selling coffee powder. His establishment has been registered as a 'Small Scale Industry'. He has got two motors of 2 H. P. each. He purchases coffee seeds, roasts them in the roaster machine and grinds them into powder in the grinding machine and sells the same to the customers. The petitioners, with a view to take possession of the premises, determined the tenancy and called upon the respondent to surrender possession by giving him fifteen days time. The respondent contended that he has been engaged in the manufacture of coffee powder and, therefore, entitled to six months notice. Both the Courts have upheld the contention and dismissed the application for eviction.3. This Court in John Augustine Peter...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Seetharamiah Vs. B.V. Shivappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant122; ILR1977KAR875; 1977(1)KarLJ284
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22-9-1975 passed by the III Additional District judge, Bangalore, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 74 of 1975, reversing the order dated 1-1-1975 passed by the principal I munsiff, Bangalore in H. R. C. No. 981 of 1970.2. On the contentions put forward by the parties in regard to jurisdictional fact whether there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner, the principal I Munsiff, applying the principle laid down in the decision in Puttananjamma v. Channabasavanna (1965) 2 Mys LJ 792 and holding that the decision in Mathuralal v. Keshar Bai : [1970]3SCR724 bad not overruled the decision in PuttananJamma's case, dismissed the application filed by the respondent under S. 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned III Additional District judge has held that the principle laid clown by the Supreme Court in Mathuralal's Case governed t...
Tag this Judgment!H. Ganesh Kamath and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant165; 1977(1)KarLJ277
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. In these four petitions, amendment to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, by Notification No. HD 16 TMR 73 dated 7th July 1976, introducing sub-r. (2) to R. 5 is challenged. Rule 5 (2) is as follows:'(2) No authorisation to drive a heavy motor vehicle shall be granted unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority concerned that he has had at least two years) experience in driving any medium Motor Vehicle.'It is contended that the said sub-rule is repugnant to the provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter called the 'Act'), and accordingly ultra vires.2. The petitioner in the first writ petition had obtained a learner's licence to learn driving heavy motor vehicles under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') and obtained training in Crown Motor Driving School, Mangalore, which was an institution recognised by the Government of Karnataka under R. 30 of the Rules and held licence to...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. R.Y. Hulkoti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant119; ILR1977KAR961; 1977(1)KarLJ281
1. since the parties and questions arising are common to these two appeals, they are disposed of by a common judgment. They are by the State of Karnataka represented by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dharwar, and against the order passed on I. As. II and III, in Miscellaneous Appeals 21 and 22 of 1973 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Dharwar, whereby lie has refused to set aside abatement and permit the legal representatives of the respondent to be brought on record.2. The miscellaneous appeals in question have been preferred by the State, being aggrieved by the awards made by the Civil judge on a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it would appear that when they were pending the respondent-claimant died on 17-4-1974. The appellant-State came to know of it only on 6-6-1974 through a memo filed by the counsel for the deceased respondent. Thereupon the appellant made enquiries and after verifying the fact of death of the respondent and ascertaining the n...
Tag this Judgment!United Breweries Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR120(KAR); [1978]115ITR120(Karn); 1977(2)KarLJ86
Venkatachaliah, J.1. I.T.R.C. NO. 15 of 1974 is a reference under section 19 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and I.T.R.C. No. 7 of 1974, I.T.R.C. No. 8 of 1974, I.T.R.C. No. 9 of 1974, I.T.R.C. No. 16 of 1974 and I.T.R.C. No. 17 of 1974 are references under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, referring certain questions of law for the opinion of this court. The first question is common to I.T.R.C. Nos. 15 to 17 of 1974 and so is the second question to all the six references, except, of course, for variations in the sums involved. Accordingly, these references are disposed of by a common order. 2. Since the reference in I.T.R.C. No. 15 of 1974 and the questions of fact and law arising therein are typical and illustrative of the scope of the questions referred, we may deal with I.T.R.C. No. 15 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. the Indian Union Owning South Central Railw ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant168; ILR1977KAR360; 1977(2)KarLJ505
ORDER1. These 24 petitions can be disposed of by a common order as a common question of law has arisen in all of them. They are preferred by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Bagalkot, in Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 14, 19, 20, 21, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of 1973 and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 30 and 31 of 1974, whereby the judgment of the Additional Munsiff at Bagalkot in Original Suits Nos. 78, 63, 65, 67, 11, 12, 13, 66, 71, 75, 79, 77, 81, 62, 68, 70, 76, 80, 74, 64, 9, 69, 8 and 10 of 1972 respectively stood affirmed.2. The suits in point were filed by the State of Karnataka for recovery of damages for short delivery of wheat by the Southern Railway Administration which was a Property of the Union of India. Among the defences raised on behalf of the defendants, there was one appertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain suits of the present nature. The specific plea in that regard was that the suits, being between the State a...
Tag this Judgment!Hukamichand Devkisen Sarda and ors. Vs. Ratanlal Rupchand Heda and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1370
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum reversing on revision the order of discharge made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class of that district in a case Under Section 420 of the I. P. Code and directing that a charge toe framed under that count against the accused. The prosecution case was that the accused No. 1 (A. 1), the accused No. 2 (A. 2) and the accused No. 3 (A. 3) along with the accused No. 4 (A. 4) entered into a joint business of purchasing and selling sarees, although the said business was to exist in the account books only in the name of A. 4. Since the complainant was known to A. 1 to A. 3 he believed their representation and supplied sarees worth more than Rs. 4.000/- to A. 1 to A. 4. The katha was opened in the name of A. 4. It was further stated that on 13-2-1974, when the complainant approached A. 1 to A. 4 to make some payment, Rs. 500/- was paid in cash and 2 post dated cheques were got issued by ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bai Vs. Tukaram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant170; ILR1977KAR556; 1977(1)KarLJ270
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-6-1973 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Dharwar, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 71 of 1971 setting aside the order passed in H. R. C. No. 50 of 1968 by the Additional Munsiff, Hubli and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Ss. 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the owner of open site bearing C. T. S. No. 1858 in Ward No. V of Hubli and also bearing municipal H. D. M. C. No. 19. She has leased out the site to respondent 1 Tukaram, since dead. His legal representative, namely, the wife has been brought on record. Tukaram had constructed a structure worth about Rs. 400/- by 18-5-1964. On 18-5-1964, the petitioner and Tukaram entered into a contract of lease as per Ext. P-1.3. The petitioner filed an application under S. 21 (1) (a) and (f) of the Act contending that as per Ext. P-1 Tukaram had t...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaputrappa Gurshantappa Angadi and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1369
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. These two Criminal Petitions presumably Under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arise out of a proceeding Under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, pending before the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Mundgod, District North Kanara.2. The Police Sub-Inspector, Mundgod submitted a report before the Magistrate, on 2-3-1976 alleging that there was likelihood of breach of the peace at the instance of the petitioners and the opposite party involved who is one Sri B. F. Bendigeri, President of Mundgod Taluk Congress (R) Committee, it was stated that the petitioners are the President, General Secretary and members of the Taluk Congress (O) Committee of Mundgod. The report of the Police Sub-Inspector, indicated that the petitioners 'colluded and decided to bring a party from Belgaum or Dharwar to murder Sri B. F. Bendigeri.' This they intend doing because, B. F. Bendigeri was appointed as President of Taluk PLD Bank, Mundgod and some person of his choice ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »