Karnataka Court August 1983 Judgments

Narasing Gopalrao Desai Vs. the Land Tribunal, Khanapur and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant69; 1984(1)KarLJ360

ORDER1. These two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, have come up before us upon a reference made by Venkatesh J. on the ground that the petitions raise important questions of law of far-reaching consequences. It is true that the questions raised are of considerable importance and they relate to the rights of a soldier or seaman to resume the tenanted lands, and the rights of the tenants to get occupancy in respect of such lands connected with the scope of jurisdictions of the Land Tribunal and the Tahsildar under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (The 'Act').2. The events leading to the petitions are as follows:S.No.38 measuring 7 acres and 30 guntas situate in the village Mudewadi, Khanapur Taluk, Belgaum District, belongs to Narasimha Gopal Rao Desai who is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. The said land originally belonged to his joint family and under a family partition which took place in 1959, it was allotted as against the share of the petit...

S. Muniyappa Vs. H.L. Narasimhaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1984)ACC85; AIR1984Kant63; 1984(1)KarLJ41

1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 7th July, 1978 passed by the District Judge and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-1, Bangalore in Miscellaneous (MVC) Case No. 99 of 1975 on his file, awarding compensation of Rupees 15, 430.03 p., along with interest and costs in favour of the injured claimant.2. It is the case of the claimant that he is a building contractor and that he earns annually not less than Rs. 16,368/-. On 26-11-1974 at about 1.30 P.M. he was going on his scooter bearing Registration No. MYB 3689 from east to west along N.S. Iyengar Street, on the left side of the road. A car bearing Registration No. MYM 5530 came from north to south driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the scooter. The scooter-rider was thrown to a distance of about 8 or 10 feet on the left side. He sustained fracture of his left leg and one of his arms and other parts of the body sustained injury. Scooter was damaged. One Kempanna, who wa...

Meenakshi and Etc. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant221

ORDER1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. M/s. Hanuman Transport Company, Udupi, Abbas Ali, Mangalore, respondents 3 and 4 in Writ Petitions Nos. 41706 and 41707 of 1992 and S. Chandrasekhar, Respondent 3 in Writ Petitions Nos. 8442 and 8443 of 1983, who will be hereafter referred to as permit holders, hold stage carriage permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority Dakshina-Kannada (hereinafter referred to as the-RTA) under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to operate their respective vehicles on routes situated in the District of Dakshina Kannada only for the number of trips specified in their respective permits.3. On different dates, the permit holders applied before the RTA for variation of the conditions of their permits by increasing the number of trips as also the vehicles. In certain applications, the permit holders sought to operate the increased vehicles ...

Gajanand Motor Transport Co. and anr. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(1984)ACC531

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I dispose of them by a common order.2. M/s Hanuman Transport Company, Udupi, Abbas Ali, Mangalore, respondents 3 and 4 in writ petition Nos. 41706 and 41707 of 1982 and S. Chandrasekhar, Respondent No. 3 in writ petition Nos. 8442 and 8443 of 1983, who will be hereafter referred to as permit holders, hold stage carriage permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to operate their respective vehicles on routes situated in the District of Dakshina Kannada only for the number of trips specified in their respective permits.3. On different dates, the permit holders applied before the RTA for variation of the conditions of their permits by increasing the number of trips as also the vehicles. In certain applications, the permit holders sought to operate the increased vehic...

B. Ganapathy Bhandarkar Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1193Kant

S. Rajendrababu, J. 1. This petition arise a out of certain proceedings under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act). Respondent, by an order, on the basis of the materials available before him, held that the petitioner started a proprietary trading concern in the name and style 'Ganapathy Bhandarkar' at Mangalore in the year 1959, dealing in weighing scales, hardware, etc. The said concern started a branch at Avenue Road, Bangalore, under the same name. Respondent found that the petitioner by using infrastructure, namely, the capital, men, office, etc., of his proprietary concern, which was a trading establishment, started a manufacturing unit in the industrial estate at Mangalore, and on that basis held that the manufacturing unit is an expansion of the economic activity of the trading concern and all the three units (two trading concerns, one at Mangalore and the other at Bangalore and the Factory) formed one establishment ...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii Vs. Sheshappa Hegde

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)174; [1984]150ITR164(KAR); [1984]150ITR164(Karn)

Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The question refereed for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the 'money payable' on acquisition of motor vehicles under the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance became due only subsequent to the period relating to the assessment year 1976-77, and that profit under s. 41(2) off the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be computed for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. The facts in brief are as follows : Two contract carriages bearing Nos. MYZ 5687 and MYZ 6887 owned by the assessee, Sheshappa Hegde, were acquired by the State of Karnataka under the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 7 of 1976), which was later replaced by the karnataka Contract Carriages (acquisition) Act., 1976, (Karnataka Act 21 of 1976) (hereinafter referred t...

Sankaranarayana Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Kar)252; [1984]145ITR467(KAR); [1984]145ITR467(Karn)

1. In this reference made under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('Act' called shortly), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of Rs. 39,543 for the assessment year 1973-74 cannot be allowed to be adjusted while computing the income of the assesses firm in the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The answer to this question turns on the scope of s. 32(2) of the Act which has given rise to acute conflict of judicial opinion. 3. The facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : Unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 1,14,779 in the assessment of the assessee, a registered firm, was left to be adjusted against the individual income of the partners under s. 32(2) for the assessment year 1972-73. After setting it off against the individual income of its partners for the same assessment year, a sum of Rs. 39,543 still remained bein...

Fazaul Rahiman and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. The petitioners herein were the accused in C.C. No. 18/1979 on the file of the Munisff and J.M.F.C., Somwarpet. They were tried by that Court for offences under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act) read with Rr. 154 and 155 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1967 (the Rules) on the allegation that they had been found transporting in a car bearing No. MYG 1518 on 28-11-1976 at about 5 a.m., on the public road at Seegehosur near Kakkehole bridge in Somwarpet Taluk of Kodagu District some sandalwood without a permit. 2. On the accused claiming to be tried the learned Magistrate received the evidence for the prosecution questioned the accused, and thereafter hearing the concerned, by his judgment dated 13-6-1979, found these persons guilty and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I., for 3 months and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default to pay the said sum, to suffer further R.I., for 3 months. The Sandalwood seized was confiscated to the Government. 3. This...

State of Karnataka Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant95; 1984(1)KarLJ9

G.N. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs in directed against the Judgment and decree dated 29-7-1976 passed by the Third Additional Civil Judge. Bangalore City. in Original Suit No. 150 of 197 . on his file. rejecting the applicable made under Section 30 mad with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 and directing that a decree be passed in terms of the award passed by the Arbitrators.2.The Karnataka State entered into two agreements dated 21-9-1960 and 24-11-1960 with the respondent/defendant M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. in the matter of construction of Pressure Twin Tunnels at Vodenbyle and their approaches under the agreement dated 21-9-1960. referred to as Part I. And constructor of Surge Tanks and Penstock Tunnels under agreement dated 24-11-1960. referred to as Part II. Disputes having arisen with regard to refund of Payment of certain amount. the Contractor issued notice of arbitration dated 4-3-1971 under Clause 51of the General Conditions of the Contract. Th...

Gurappa Basappa Dalal and ors. Vs. Modinsab Maliksab Bagwan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1984(1)KarLJ33

ORDER1. This is an application under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (the Code) filed by the accused in C.C. No. 9 of 1982 on the file of the JMFC, Mudhol against the order of that court D/- 5-7-1983 issuing process against them for offences under sections 447, 379 and 504 read with S. 149 I.P.C. 2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of this complaint under S. 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (the Code). On receiving the complaint he has taken the sworn statements of the complainant and two others as provided in S. 200 of the Code. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the court below, not having properly applied its mind and wrongly coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case, has erred in issuing process against them. The learned counsel, in the course of his arguments, took me through the complaint and the sworn statements (copies of which he has placed in the records). I have perused them. 4. 16 persons, including these 10 persons are shown as t...