Karnataka Court August 1979 Judgments
West End Minerals and Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Hubli Dharwar Municipal Cor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant66
ORDER1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. The Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 85 of 1976 and 3100 of 1977 who are the principal and sub-transport contractors respectively for carrying iron ore from Hubli railway station to Karwar-Belikere ports in their public carrier vehicles commonly called as 'lorries' or 'trucks', challenge the imposition of a fee called 'supervision fee, levied by the Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) at the rate of Rs. 2/- truck per journey.3. Iron ore is extracted-from Bellary/Hospet Mines by a Karnataka Government company called 'the Mysore Minerals Limited' (hereinafter referred to as the MML). Another Government company called 'the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited' (hereinafter referred to as the MMTC) has entered into a contract with MML and the Government of Karnataka, to import iron ore of the quantity...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Devi Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant17; ILR1979KAR2486; 1980(1)KarLJ164
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is for a writ of habeas corpus against the State of Karnataka and the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, to produce the petitioner's husband Sri H. Javerilal in Court and to set him at liberty.2. This petition was heard by us on 24th August 1979. Upon concluding the arguments, for want of time to dictate the reasoned order, we then directed that the detenu should be released forthwith and the reasons for our conclusion would follow this week.3. We, now proceed to set out our reasons for the order passed on that day.The order of detention was apparently made by the State Government and it reads:GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No. HD 32 SCF /79. Karnataka Government & Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore,Dated: 17th July 1979. ORDER Whereas, the Government of Karnataka are satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri H. Javerilal, S/o Sri Hastimalji of Messm Modern Watch Company No. 844, Chickpet, ...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Shive Gowda, Etc., Etc. Vs. Coffee Board and ors., Etc., Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: 1980(1)KarLJ200; (1980)ILLJ123Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these four writ appeals, preferred against the orders of the single Judge dismissing the four writ petitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by registered owners of coffee estates under the Indian Coffee Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the Coffee Board, is an industry carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Central Government or is an institution established not for purposes of profit, and consequently excepted from the application of the Payment of Bonus Act in view of cls. (iv) and (v) (c), respectively, of S. 32 of the Act ?' 2. The appellants are registered owners of coffee estates under the Act. The first respondent-Coffee Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has been brought into existence by the Act. With the approval of the Central Government, the Board decided to pay bonus to its employees under the provisions of the Payme...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Duggappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ301
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 7-5-1979 bearing No. 1 (1) ENT.CR.113/7B-79 passed of the District Magistrate, Chitradurga, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of a licence for conducting the variety entertainment shows in Sy No. 49 of Davangere and also to use the said place for public amusement.2. The first respondent has rejected the application on the ground that the grant of licence will badly affect the effective maintenance of law and order.3. It was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order does not contain any reason and the reason given by the first respondent that it would affect the effective maintenance of the law and order, cannot at all be said to be a ground for rejecting the application.4. The petitioner filed an application for grant of licence for conducting the variety entertainment shows on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirathi Bai and Shantha Bai Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR843(KAR); [1979]120ITR843(Karn); 1980(1)KarLJ290
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. These two revision petitions arise under the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act and have been filed challenging the order of the Commr. of Agrl. I.T. passed under S. 35 of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957. 2. Bhagirathi Bai (petitioner in C.R.P. 1225 of 1977) is the mother of Shantha Bai J. Nayak, the petitioner in C.R.P. 1232 of 1977. These two persons were assessed to agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1975-76 in the status of individuals. The order of the Commissioner which is impugned in these petitions is a common one. It has been stated therein that Bhagirathi Bai had been held to be non-assessable under S. 19(3) of the Act. This is incorrect. It transpires that for an earlier year the Commissioner had taken action under S. 35 and come to a conclusion that V.P. Shanbhogue and Vasudeva P. Shanbhogue who are brothers, Bhagirathi Bai their mother and Shantha Bai their sister constituted an association of persons and in respect of the lands held by them, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Siddeshwara Rice Mill Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer (intelligenc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC410(Kar)
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This writ petition, coming up for preliminary hearing in B group after notice to respondent, is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Davangere, visited the rice mill premises of the petitioner at about 3.45 p.m. and started indiscriminately collecting books of account and other records available in the premises of the rice mill. He has narrated the number of books that were taken custody of the by the respondent. The respondent, at the time of seizure as above, gave a receipt, which is produced as exhibit A to the petition. Thereafter, in spite of several reminders by the petitioner, the respondent did not return the books of account and other records as per exhibit A. Aggrieved by the non-return, the petitioner has approached this Court under article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, contending that the seizure was illegal...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Bee Vs. the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sakaleshpur and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant154
ORDER1. These writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by a common order as they involve common questions of law.W. P. No. 410/77: In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner who has purchased the agricultural land measuring 2 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No, 62 of Belur, Taluk Belur, district Hassan, from the 3rd respondent under a registered sale deed dated 18-7-1968, has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sakaleshpur Sub Division, Sakaleshpur, in Case No. DRC. 132/766-77, 'dated 28-10-1976 allowing the application filed by the 3rd respondent under Section 4(f) of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and further directing the petitioner to hand over the possession to the land in question to the 3rd respondent.2. Before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a registered sale-deed dated 18-7-1968 and also another registered document of the same date executed by the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa and ors. Vs. the Textile Commissioner, Bombay 1 and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant130
ORDER1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases. I propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Among others, the petitioners, who own lea than five powerlooms claim to be solely engaged in the manufacture of coloured sarees in the several parts of Karnataka State but with considerable concentration at places like Banahatti, Rabkavi, Terdal, Mahalingapur and some other places of Bijapur, Dharwar and Belgaum Districts. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause 20 f the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order 1948 (hereinafter -referred to as the Control Order), the joint Textile Commissioner, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') by Notifications Nos. CER/10/77 and CER/2/77 dated 15th April. 1977, has issued various directions regulating the production of cotton textiles by different manufacturers in the country to be In force till 31-8-1982. By one of the directions, owners of less than five powerlooms are prohibited fro...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Electro Carbonium Private Ltd. Vs. in Re: Electric Materials Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1979
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas234(Kar)
Chandrakantharaj URS, J.1. Heard the learned counsel on the office objection. The office objection is to the effect that a petition by only one of the companies, under s. 391(1)(b) of the Companies Act, is not maintainable when the prayer is for amalgamation of the petitioner-company and another company. The two companies have filed a common petition. 2. It is contended for the applicants-companies that a common petition is maintainable since the statutory requirement of holding a meeting of the shareholders for approving the scheme of amalgamation has been complied with by both the companies. The counsel for the applicants-companies has relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of In re Union Services Private Ltd. [1973] 43 Comp Cas 319. In the said case for the Registrar of Companies, reliance was placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in In re Carron Tea Company Ltd. [1966] 2 Comp LJ 278 (Cal). It was distinguished by the Madras High Court on the sole ...
Tag this Judgment!Republic Medico Surgical Company Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant168; 1979(2)KarLJ410
1. This appeal is by the Plaintiff company and is directed against the order dated 12th Sept. 1975 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City on Issue No.1 in O.S. No. 150 of 1972 on his file.2. The Plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of balance of the price towards silt equipages supplied to the 2nd defendant in Bhuvaneshwar. The defendant No. 2 raised the contention that the court in Bangalore had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That is the subject matter of issue No. 1 which was set down for hearing as preliminary issue.3. The learned Civil judge appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary adduced before him, came to the conclusion that no part of the cause of action took place in Bangalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly he ordered the return of the plaint for presentation before a competent Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has come up in appeal before this Court.Section 20 C. P. C. no, doubt stat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »