Karnataka Court December 1978 Judgments
Bhaskar Touring Talkies, Bangalore and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1978
Reported in: 1979(1)KarLJ215
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a owner of a touring talkies, has challenged the validity of R. 107 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971. This application is filed under O. 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 By the three permanent cinema owners praying for a direction that they be impleaded as respondents to the writ petition. This application is resisted by the petitioners. 2. Sri K. K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Rule 107(1)(a) of the Rules specifically prohibits the location f a touring cinema within a distance of 1.6 kilometers from the location of a permanent cinema and Rule 107(1)(b) of the Rules prohibits the location of a touring cinema in and within a distance of 1.6 kilometers from the limits of town and cities having a population of 15,000 or more and, therefore, the applicants being permanent cinema owners are necessary parties or in any event proper parties to the writ petition as the rule is framed fo...
Tag this Judgment!Muruli Touring Talkies and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant162
ORDER1. All these writ petitions have been presented by the touring cinema owners challenging certain provisions of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on the ground that they are violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. As common questions or law and facts arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The provisions of the Rules challenged are as follows:-- (I) sub-rules (2) of the R. 98 which compels touring cinema owners to stop their touring cinemas at least for a period of one month if they intend to continue their cinemas on the same site, which reads as follows: '98. Grant or Refusal of license (1) ** ** ** (2) No licence in respect of a site shall be granted or regranted continuously for a period exceeding one year unless one month has lapsed after the expiry of said period of one year.' (ii) Sub-rule (5) of the 96 which compels the touring cinema owners to take fresh No Objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Suvarnamma Vs. B. Mukunda Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant150; ILR1979KAR1344; 1979(2)KarLJ25
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. This appeal was heard in part on merits a couple of months ago and since we found this a fit case for settlement out of Court, on the request of the counsel for the respective parties, we gave them sufficient time for effecting a compromise. However, the counsel having represented that a compromise is not possible on account of the rigid stand taken by the parties, we have heard the matter fully on merits and we have no hesitation in holding that for the reasons to be hereinafter stated, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.2. The defendant in the trial court is the owner of the suit schedule premises and by an agreement dated 8-2-1975 with the plaintiff; he agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and also received a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on the same day towards part payment of the sale consideration. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the date of the agreement itself, the defendant gave actual possession of the northern portion of the main building ...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Sri Jaya Chamaraja Wadiyar, Maharaja of Mysore and ors. Vs. Union ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1978
Reported in: [1981]129ITR652(KAR); [1981]129ITR652(Karn)
Venkatachalaiah, J .1. This petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India- which was originally instituted by the former ruler of the then princely State of Mysore, and, which,after his death, is now being prosecuted by his legal representative-is directed against the Notification No. 266/F.No 22/21/63 ITA-II dated 8th september, 1971 issued by the Central Govt., first respondent herein, purporting to delete the petitioner's palace at Mysore from the schedule to an earlier Notification NO. 31-IT, dated 14th May, 1954, issued pursuant to clause (iii) of para.15 of the part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1950, by which the Palaces at Mysore along with two other palaces of the petitioner at Bangalore and Ootacamund, respectively, had come to be declared as official residences of the petitioner. By virtue of the said declaration of May 14, 1954, the incomes from the said three palaces were exempted from income-tax and super-tax and were not includible in the total income or t...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Jadav Desai Vs. Wealth-tax Officer (Sixth) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR531(KAR); [1980]121ITR531(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The applications filed by the petitioner under s. 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), having been dismissed by the CWT, Mysore, Bangalore, in respect of the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, by his order dated March 14, 1974, these writ petitions have been filed challenging the said orders as untenable and for quashing the same and directing the Commissioner to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the order of the Commissioner which has been filed as Ex. E does not refer to any facts or circumstances justifying a conclusion that the returns had not been filed voluntarily and the conclusion is arbitrary and untenable and the rejection of the application on this ground is unjustified. 3. The facts that are not in controversy are the following : For the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 and also for the subsequent two years the assessee had filed returns un...
Tag this Judgment!Maharajakumari Meenakshi Devi Avaru and ors. Vs. Union of India and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Kar)185; [1981]129ITR652a(KAR); [1981]129ITR652a(Karn); [1981]7TAXMAN214(Kar)
ORDERVenkatachaliah, J. 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India which was originally instituted by the former Ruler of the then Princely State of Mysore, and, which, after his death, is now being prosecuted by his legal representatives is directed against the Notification No. 266/F. No. 22/21/63-ITA-II dated 8th September 1971, issued by the Central Government, first respondent herein, purporting to delete petitioner's Palace at Mysore from the schedule to an earlier Notification No. 31-IT. Dated 14th May 1954, issued pursuant to clause (iii) of paragraph 15 of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, by which the Palaces at Mysore alongwith two other Palaces of petitioner at Bangalore and Ootacamand respectively had come to be declared as Official residences of petitioner. By virtue of the said declaration of 14-5-1954 the income from the said three places were exempted from income-tax and super-tax and not includible in the total income or the total ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Chandrasekariah Vs. Karnataka Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ108Kant
1. Whether the principle of natural justice ingrained in the audi alteram partem rule should be complied with, before discharging a probationer on grounds unsuitability, is the main question of law arising for consideration in this case in which the petitioner, who was a conductor, who was on probation in the service of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has prayed for quashing the order by which he was discharged from service which was not preceded by a show cause notice. 2. Facts. - The petitioner was working as 'badli' conductor on the establishment of the Corporation since 1971. On 6th December, 1976, he was appointed as a conductor on the regular establishment of the Corporation on probation. While he was on probation, by order dated 22/23rd June, 1976, he was discharged from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 3. Sri G. B. Raikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged the following contentions : (1) That though th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›