Karnataka Court September 1981 Judgments
Parijatha and anr. Vs. Kamalaksha Nayak and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant105; ILR1981KAR1433; 1981(2)KarLJ570
Venkatachala, J.1. This civil revision petition is before us on its reference to a Division Bench.2. The necessary and material facts are, briefly, these: Respondent-1 was the plaintiff in 0. S. No. 442 of 1980, on the file of the Munsiff, Udipi. Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 were defendants 2, 1, 3 and 4 respectively therein. In that suit, the plaintiff, inter alia, sought a permanent injunction to restrain defendants 3 and 4 from granting an 'Exhibition Certificate' respecting the motionpicture 'Gandabherunda' on the allegations that defendant-1 represented to the plaintiff that he (defendant-1) had acquired the exclusive right to exhibit that film 'Gandabherunda' in Dharwar District by virtue of the agreement Df15-1-1979 executed in his favour by defendant-2 and one Vajramuni; that the plaintiff, on the strength of that representation, entered into an agreement D/5-9-1980 with defendant-2 whereunder defendant-1 had to deliver to the plaintiff by 15-12-1980 prints of the said film enabli...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Naik Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)KarLJ156; (1982)ILLJ392Kant
1. After service of notices on the respondents, this case was posted before me today for preliminary hearing ('Group-B'). As agreed to by both sides, this case is treated a listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard. 2. Issue rule nisi. 3. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to treat his period of suspension from 4-5-1980 to 21-10-1980 as on duty and accord him all such consequential benefits flowing from such declaration. 4. A few days before 4-6-1980, the petitioner, a member of Karnataka Judicial service in the cadre of District Judges, while traveling in a passenger bus was alleged to have been involved in a drunken brawl in connection with which a complaint was lodged by a co-passenger or crew of the bus before the police. By an order No. RPS 60/1980 dated 3-6-1980 (Annexure-C), this Court, on the administrative side, placed the petitioner under suspension till further o...
Tag this Judgment!Sudershan Boury and anr. Vs. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas103(Kar); 1982(1)KarLJ62
Sabhahit, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common order, dated October 18,1978, passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, in Appeal Nos. 1464/1977 and 142/1978, on its file, reducing the penalty against the husband from Rs. 6,925 to Rs. 4,000 and against the wife from Rs. 4,025 to Rs. 2,000. 2. Kulbhushan Boury was born in Kenya and was carrying on business in that country which he had to abandon in 1970 due to political upheaval. Though a holder of a Britishs passport and a person residing and working for gain in Nairobi for near half century, his business licence was not renewed by the Kenya Govt. and he along with his family landed in India for consideration of permanent residence. Kulbhushan Boury and Smt. Sudershan Boury were having joint bank accounts and in England subscribing to a life insurance policy. The Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, after holding adjudication proceedings found both of them guilty of contravention of ss. 4(1) and 9 o...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Transport Co. Vs. D.S. Soma Shekar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1065; ILR1982KAR169; 1982(1)KarLJ186
ORDER1. These petitions by the original complainant are directed against the common order dated 19-2-1979 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiptur, in C.C. Nos. 1051 to 1051, 1057 to 1060/1977 and 103 to 111 and 1569 to 175 of 1978 discharging the accused-respondents of the offences under Sections 120-B, 477-A, 420 and 420 read with S. 109 of the Penal Code. 2. I.A. No. 4 in each of the petitions is filed by A-1 under Section 482 of Criminal P.C. for dismissal of the aforesaid petitions on the ground that a private party has no locus standi to prosecute the above revision petitions. 3. For proper appreciation of the grounds urged by the accused in the said application regarding maintainability of the revision petitions, it is necessary to advert to the facts leading to the revision petitions, in brief. 4. The Detective Inspector (F.S.) C.O.D., Bangalore filed 37 charge-sheets before the trial Court against the accused who are either in number, for offences under Sections 1...
Tag this Judgment!Sudershan Boury and Etc. Vs. the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant135; [1982]52CompCas305a(Kar); ILR1982KAR280
Sabhahit, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common order dated 18-10-78, passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, in appeal Nos. 1464/1977 and 142/1978, on its file, reducing the penalty against the husband from Rs. 6,925/- to Rs. 4,000/and against the wife from Rs, 4,025/- to Rs. 2,000/-.2. Kulbhushan Boury was born in Kenya and was carrying on business in that country which he had to abandon in 1970 due to political upheaval. Though a holder of British passport and a person residing and working for gain in Nairobi for a near half century, his business license was not renewed by the Kenya Government and he along with his family landed in India for consideration of permanent residence. Kulbhushan Boury and Smt. Sudershan Boury were having joint bank accounts and in England subscribing to a life insurance policy. Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, after holding adjudication proceedings found both of them guilty of contravention of Ss. 4(1) and 9 of F...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC275(Kar)
Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. In this petition under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976, the two questions urged by the petitioner are these : (i) Whether the assessing officer was justified in making a best judgment assessment of the turnover; and (ii) Whether the brass cradle manufactured by the assessee, could be treated as furniture for levy of tax. 2. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has given reasons for upholding the best judgment assessment. The assessee did not maintain the manufacturing account showing the wages paid for labour. The reasons given by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is a good one. The Tribunal has also pointed out that while making the estimate of the turnover, the gross profit of 25 per cent was added to the cost of materials. The estimate of turnover made by the assessing authority was reasonable and does not call for interference. 3. Shri C. N. Kamath, the learned c...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Rajashekar Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant151
ORDER1. On 19-8-1980 the petitioner made an application under S. 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of a special permit before the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the RTO) for carrying passengers on hire or reward in his motor Vehicle bearing No. MED 4503 from 22-8-1980 to 31-8-1980. On the said application made by the petitioner the RTO by his endorsement No. SPB/MED 45041 80-81 (Annexure-B) apparently influenced by the form of the permit prescribed by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) directed the petitioner to furnish the names and addresses of the passengers travelling in the vehicle as per R. 111 (5) of the Rules as a condition precedent to consider that application.2. On 9th Sept. 1980 the petitioner approached this Court under Art, 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the aforesaid order made by the RTO and for striking down column N...
Tag this Judgment!Doddappa Maritammappa Basaput and anr. Vs. Erappa Mudakappa Navalli an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant191; 1982(1)KarLJ154
ORDER1. At the stage of admission, the respondents are notified. Accordingly, the 1st respondent has put in appearance through a counsel. Hence the matter is heard on merits2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dt. 4-2-1981 passed on I.As. 4, 5 and 6 by the learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Hubli, in Original Suit No. 25 of 1976 allowing the applications. I.A. No. 4 is an application filed by the plaintiff under O. 22 R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), to bring the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant on record. I.A. No. 5 is an application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act for condo nation of delay in filing the L. R. application. I.A. 6 is an application under O. 22, R. 9 of the Code, for setting aside the abatement. As per Exhibit D-an extract from the death register, the first defendant died on 18-11-1977. The aforesaid application came to be filed on 3-7-1980. A memo about the death of the 1st defendant was ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Siddamma Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant148
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator. On 19-6-1981 he filed an application under S. 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for grant of a stage carriage permit on the inter-regional route lying between Somasetty Hally within the region of Kolar Regional Transport Authority and Tumkur Town which is in the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Tumkur. The application presented to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, first respondent herein, was not acted upon as normally when such application is presented the same has to be published under S. 57 (3) of the Act, for inviting objections. On the other hand, when the petitioner approached the . first respondent with a representation on 13-7-1981, he has been issued an endorsement dated 16-7-1981 stating that his application dated 19-6-1981 for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route in question will be placed before the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar...
Tag this Judgment!Vellaya Gouder Vs. N. Ramanathan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas49(Kar); ILR1981KAR1602; 1982(1)KarLJ57
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the owner is directed against judgment and award, dated December 18, 1980, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bangalore City, in M.V.C. 81/1980, on its file, awarding compensation of Rs. 51,318.58, to the injured claimant. 2. It is the case of the claimant that he was working as a casting inspector in M/s. Veekay Malleables, on a monthly salary of Rs. 226 plus attendance bonus of Rs. 26. On June 23, 1979, at about 7-45 p.m., the claimant was going cycling on Bangalore-Tumkur Road near Mangharam Biscuit Factory slowly and on the left side of the road in order to go to his factory. The lorry, bearing No. TNE 3831, came from behind at a terrific speed and without sounding the horn, suddenly hit against his cycle. The claimant fell down injured and his left foot was crushed. His cycle was damaged. On these averments he claimed compensation of Rs. 1,70,000 from the respondents. Respondent No. 1, Vellaya Gouder is the owner and] respondent No. 2 was t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »