Karnataka Court February 1981 Judgments
S. Subramanyaswamy Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant190; ILR1981KAR513; 1981(1)KarLJ451
Venkatachalam, J. 1. This appeal is from the order of Sabhahit, J., dismissing Writ Petition No. 10069 of 1980. The petitioner therein has presented this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hem inafter be referred to according to their respective positions in the writ petition.2. The material facts are these: Premises bearing No. 253/22 (first floor, left portion), First Block, 4th Cross, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises') formed the subject matter of proceedings under the provisions of Part II of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1931 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The Rent Accommodation Controller, Civil Area, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Controller, having information that the premises had become vacant on 5-4-1980, got served on 18-4-1980 a notice on its owner (respondent 2) calling upon her to report, as required under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the vacancy of the premises on or before 20-4-1980. Thereafter, on...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajendran and ors. Vs. K.A.S. Rama Appaswamy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ86; ILR1981KAR1146; 1981(2)KarLJ476
ORDER1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the five petitioners have prayed that the proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in P.C.R. No. 13 of 1981 and the proceedings of the concerned police viz., Rajajinagar Police Station in Crime No. 30 of 1981, be quashed. 2. Few facts available as narrated by the petitioners are that respondent 1 filed a complaint before Rajajinagar Police alleging an offence under Section 380 or in the alternative under Section 406 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners. The police were of the opinion that it was a case purely of civil nature and did not take action. He, therefore, filed a complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate gave a number to that complaint as P.C.R. No. 13 of 1981. He did not take cognizance of either of the offences alleged in the complaint. He directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!S.B. Naik Patil Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka-i and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Kar)135; [1981]130ITR162(KAR); [1981]130ITR162(Karn)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is wealth-tax assessee. He owners both movable and immovable properties. He came to be assessed, to wealth-tax for the first time in the year 1970-71. His wealth in the form of immovable property is comprised in agricultural lands. Agricultural lands came within the purview of the W. T. Act, 1957, only during the assessment year 1970-71 (financial year 1969-70). The petitioner filed voluntarily his returns of wealth for assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 on November 28, 1972. It may also be noticed that the valuation was put but the petitioner racking it from March 31, 1970, and March 31, 1971, and the same was not accepted by the WTO - respondent 2. The assessments were concluded determining the total taxable wealth at Rs. 3,19,594 for 1970-71 and Rs. 1,92,852 for the assessment year 1971-72. He was required to pay tax in the sum of Rs. 1,598 for 1970-71 and Rs. 1,929 for 1971-72. 2. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the 2nd respon...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. S. Lakshminarayana Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ689
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated 21-3-1980 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore, in case No. MAG. SR 16/79/-80 between respondent-1 and respondent-2 (who were before him the petitioner and the respondent) under S. 146 of the Cr.P.C. in regard to an immovable property, which is the subject-matter of the dispute before him according to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 2. The petitioner was not a party in those proceedings. That is an undisputed fact. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that by the virtue of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under S. 146 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has been dispossessed of the subject-matter of dispute in the said proceeding viz., the immovable property and the Receiver appointed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has taken possession. The main stand of the petitioner is that there is no such dispute in regard to possession of the immovable property, becaus...
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Janthakal Vs. Bharat Parikh and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant208; 1981(1)KarLJ365
1. This appeal had appeared on earlier occasions for admission. Respondent had entered caveat. Counsel for parties therefore agreed to argue this case in full so that the appeal could be disposed of one way or the other finally.2. The facts leading to the appeal may be stated briefly as follows:3. The plaintiff is a firm of partners owning among other things a leasehold right in Hirekandavadi and Megalahalli villages, Holakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. The plaintiff acquired the mining area measuring in all about 80 acres from the previous lessee of the Government one K. Raghavendra Rao. The plaintiff's mining lease area was described in Schedule B to the plaint. It was plaintiff's case that the defendant, an., other firm, also having right over a mining area measuring about 200 acres adjoining the plaint B schedule property had done various acts, commissions, omissions, threats, incursions and removing of manganese ore from plaintiff's B Schedule area and therefore it was necessary...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Kamath and Etc. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and Etc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant193
ORDER1. These writ petitions are instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner in each case is an industrialist and he took loan and advance, from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (respondent 5) for the development of industry. It is the case of 1he respondents that the loans did not repay the loans in accordance with the terms of the agreement for advancing loans and in some cases they did not even utilise loans for the proper purpose. Hence, the loans were recalled and steps were taken for recoveries under the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976. The present writ petitions are filed challenging the competence of respondent 5 the Karnataka State Financial Corporation to so recover the loans as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act 1979.2. The writ Petitions are resisted by the respondents. They have contended by the counter filed by respondents 4 and 5 Viz,, the Managing Dire...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjappa and anr. Vs. the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: 1981(1)KarLJ463; [1981]48STC168(Kar)
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The two petitioners in the above two writ petitions are agriculturists in Abalawadi Village, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk in Mandya District. They grow sugarcane and paddy on the lands owned by them. They have asserted that they are not dealers within the meaning of the term 'dealer' contained in the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners have further averred that they have crushers which are operated by source of power other than electric power such as manual or animal power. They have also asserted that they crush only the sugarcane grown by them. When things were such the petitioners received separate notices issued by the 1st respondent-Assistant Commercial Tax Officer bearing the date 5th July, 1977, informing them that they are due to pay for the year 1975-76 tax of Rs. 2,000.00 together with fee of Rs. 25.00 and for the year 1976-77 a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 towards tax and Rs. 25.00 towards fee and for 1977-...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Chikkathimme Gowda and ors. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax, Officer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: ILR1981KAR744; [1983]140ITR434(KAR); [1983]140ITR434(Karn); 1981(1)KarLJ465
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners who are all brothers have impugned the validity of the assessment order dated January 23, 1976, passed by the respondent-Agrl. ITO, Tumkur Circle, Tumkur. 2. The fact which are not in dispute may be stated as follows: Petitioners are all residents of Handanakere village in Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk. Their father dies in the Year 1965. Petitioners were member of an HUF but on November 6, 1964, there was a partition by metes and bounds and also by a panch palupatti in the family and the petitioners have been since then enjoying the properties that have fallen to their shares separately. The income of any one of the petitioners from the share allotted to him does not attract the imposition of tax under the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as it is below the taxable limit. However, about the end of March, 1973, the respondent issued a notice to the 1st petitioner who is the 2nd of the three brot...
Tag this Judgment!H.Y. Harish Vs. Selection Committee for Selection and Admissionto Gove ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant239
ORDER1. In response to the notification calling for applications for selection to the I year M.B.B.S. course in the Government and private medical colleges for the academic year 1980-81, the selection of which is regulated by the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and a large number of eligible applicants applied for selection to the said course. The petitioner claimed to be a member of 'Besthar' caste and a member of backward tribe recognised as such by Government in the relevant Government order providing for reservations under Article 15(4) of the Constitution in educational institutions of the State. His claim was also certified by the appropriate revenue authority. On a consideration of the claim made by the petitioner, the selection committee found that the petitioner was not a member of ''Beshtar' caste, but was a member of 'Beshta' caste which was not backward tribe and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Nabi Sad Akber Saheb Mulla Vs. the Commissioner for Transport in Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant211
ORDER1. Petitioner is the owner of public carrier vehicle bearing Registration No. MYJ 5427. The Fitness Certificate of that vehicle expired on 5-2-1977. However, the vehicle was seized on 5-8-1978 by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles attached to the 2nd respondent's office. In spite of the protests of the Petitioner the vehicle was handed over to Police custody with a direction that the vehicle may be released only in the event of the petitioner producing Form No. 28 Prescribed under the Rules framed under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The instructions issued to the Police Sub-Inspector, Bagalkot, by a letter dated 17-9-1978 by the 1st respondent that the vehicle should be kept in detention until the petitioner paid arrears of tax in a sum of Rs. 11,696-85 for the period 1-1-77 to 31-10-78 and the current taxes, was copied to the petitioner which has been produced at Exhibit A. Aggrieved by the letter at Exhibit A, the petitioner filed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »