Karnataka Court March 1979 Judgments
S.R. Rangaiah Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant4
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner who was a permit holder bearing No. BP. 2/71-72 on the route Upperigenahally to Davanagere as a stage carriage operator held that permit up to 27-3-1977. He has admitted in his statement of the case that he could not apply for renewal of the permit from the aforementioned date within the time prescribed by Section 58 (2) and (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). His belated application was considered by the Ist respondent R. T. A. Chitradurga, in its Subject No. 56/1977 on 30-5-1977 and rejected the same on the sole ground that it was not filed within the time stipulated under Section 58 (2) and (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in appeal No. 559/1977. After hearing the appellant, the Presiding officer of th...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Jaffer Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR586(KAR); [1980]123ITR586(Karn)
Rama Jois, J.1. These two references, T.R.C. No. 133 of 1975, connected with T.R.C No. 80 of 1977, arise out of the estate duty proceedings in respect of one A. H. Habibullah, who died on January 9, 1963. 2. In T.R.C. No. 133 of 1975, the following two question have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the Halsoor 'A' and 'B' estates in includible in the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the standing crop of the Halsoor estate was includible in the principle value of the estate ?' 3. In T.R.C. No. 80 of 1977, the following question is referred pursuant to the order made by his court in C.P. No. 39 of 1977 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Basheer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1183
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. In this appeal filed by the State under Section 377 of the Criminal P.C. it is prayed that the sentence imposed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, on the respondent who was the accused in C. C. No. 3106 of 1977, is contrary to law and the same is to be enhanced.2. At about 7-10 P. M. on 29-11-1977 the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.J. Park Police Station visited the petty shop of the respondent-accused along with pan-chas. He found that the respondent-accused had kept for sale certain books containing obscene (photos) books in Kannada, English, Tamil and Telugu language and certain books containing obscene literature. He seized the same under a panchanama, completed the investigation and placed charge-sheet.3. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate framed a charge against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 292(2) of the I.P.C. and called upon him to give his plea. The respondent-accused pleaded guilty and the plea was ac...
Tag this Judgment!Visweswara and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant14; 1979(2)KarLJ261
ORDER1. Common questions of law and facts arise in these petitions; hence the same are disposed of by a common order.2. The Petitioners in all these petitions are the applicants for the grant of land under the Land Grant Rules in the village of Vadiyur and Singanamane Bhadravathi Taluk. The case of the petitioners is that they have filed applications for grant of the lands and on the basis of their applications, records were built up and it was found by the authorities that an extent of 29 acres 12 guntas of lands was available for- being granted to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the land less agriculturists avid they satisfy all the requirements for grant of lands. The further case of the petitioners is that even though the Tahsildar came to the conclusions that the land is available for grant and the petitioners are entitled for the grant, he nevertheless without granting the applications of the petitioners sought for instructions from the Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›