Karnataka Court December 1984 Judgments
Recondo Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-26-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3794
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for, a declaration that the entire proceedings of respondents 1 to 4 culminating in the acceptance of the tender submitted by the 5th respondent are null and void, and such other reliefs as are deemed fit under the circumstances of the case.2.1. The petitioner is a registered contractor. It has registered as such with CPWD, KPWD, IAAI, HAL, BWSSB etc. Similarly, the 5th respondent is also aregistered contractor. The 1st respondent is the Board of Trustees of the New Mangalore Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Board) constituted by the Central Government under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The 2nd respondent is the Chairman of the Board. Respondents 3 and 4 are theSuperintending and Executive Engineers (Construction Division) Nos. 2 and 1 respectively of the 1st respondent.2.2. The Board is a body corporate hav...
Tag this Judgment!Noreen R. Srikantaiah Vs. L. Dasarath Ramaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas341(Kar); ILR1985KAR572; 1985(1)KarLJ278
1. This civil petition preferred by a claimant in a fatal accident action raises the question whether the Tribunal constituted by the State Government under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is a 'court' subordinate to the High Court so as to attract the general power of transfer under section 24, Civil Procedure Code. By the notification under section 110, the 'District Judge' was constituted as the Tribunal. Judicial opinion in the High Courts on the point whether the 'District Judge' function as 'persona designation' or functions as 'court' is not uniform. The petition is before us on its reference to a Divisions Bench by Kudoor J. 2. The petitioner is the wife of a certain C. S. Srikantaiah who died on July 9, 1980, in motor accident. She filed MVC No. 51 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, claiming compensation. 3. By the present petition, she seeks to invoke the general power of transfer of the High Court under section 24, Civil Proced...
Tag this Judgment!Business Forms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC118; 1992(61)ELT429(Kar); [1985]59STC87(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. A short but an important question that arises for consideration in these appeals is : 'Whether teleprinter rolls, adding machine rolls and computer out-put papers, etc., could be classified as 'paper', within the scope of entry 125 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') ?' 2. The appellant is a limited company having its head office at Calcutta. It has branch offices in many States dealing in teleprinter rolls, addition machine rolls, computer out-put papers and printed stationery. For the assessment year 1973-74, the turnover returned by the assesses-company was assessed by the assessing authority at the rate prescribed under section 5(1) of the Act. But, subsequently, the assessing authority reassessed the turnover under section 12-A of Act, levying the tax at the rate prescribed under entry 125 of the Second Schedule. Similar assessment was made on the turnover returned by the assessee for the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Noreen R. Srikantaiah Vs. L. Dasarath Ramaiah, Gulbarga and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant208; [1987]61CompCas435a(Kar)
ORDER1. This civil petition preferred by a claimant in a fatal-accident-action raises the question whether the Tribunal constituted by the State Government under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act for short) is a 'Court' subordinate to the High Court so as to attract the general power of transfer under S. 24 CPC. By the notification under S. 110 the 'District Judge' was constituted as the Tribunal. Judicial opinion in the High Courts on the point whether the 'District Judge' functions as 'persona designata' or functions as 'Court' is not uniform. The petition is before us on its reference to a Division Bench by Kudoor, J.2. Petitioner is the wife of a certain C. S. Srikantaiah who died on 9-7-1980 in a motor accident. She filed MVC 51 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, claiming compensation.3. By the present petition she seeks to invoke the general power of transfer of the High Court under S. 24 C.P.C for the transfer of her case from the Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Bai Ammal Vs. Rajagopal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1706
Kudoor, J.1. These two Regular First Appeals arise out of the common judgment and decrees dated 23-4-1983 passed in O.S.No. 10521/1980 and O.S.No. 10002/1981 by the XAdditional City Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. R.F.A.No.402/1983 is directed against the decree passed in O.S.No. 10521/1980 preferred by the defendants and R.F.A. No. 403/1983 is against the decree in O.S.No.10002/1981 preferred by the plaintiff.2. In O.S.No. 10521/1980, K.V. Rajagopal is the plaintiff and Smt. Sundarabai Ammal and her son Ramachandran and grand son Kantharaj are the defendants; whereas in O.S.No. 10002/1981 Smt. Sundarabai is the plaintiff and K.V. Rajagopal is the defendant.3. I shall refer to the facts of the case as set out in the earlier suit O.S.No. 10521/1980 for the sake of convenience as it would serve the purpose of the other suit O.S.No. 10002/1981 also since the plaint averments in the former suit is the defence in the latter and the defence taken by the defendants in the former suit i...
Tag this Judgment!Viswanatha Shenoy Vs. Smt. Radhabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2449
ORDERNarayana Rai Kudoor, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition one under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'the Code') by the member of 'B' party is directed against the order dated 4-11-83 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kundapur, in No. MAG.C.R.I. 3/83-84 declaring that the members of 'A' party was in possession of the disputed lands on 10-10 1981 the date of the order of the Land Tribunal and also on the date of the preliminary order of the Court dated 23-6-1983 and that the 'A' party is entitled to the possession of the said lands until evicted therefrom in due course of law.2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of this revision may be stated as under:There was dispute between members of the 'A' and 'B' party in respect of Sy. No. 5/11,5/15,5/16,5/17,5/18,5/24,5/26, 5/27, 5/28 and 5/29 in all measuring 3 acres 80 cents of Mallar village. The Police Sub-Inspector of Shirva brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Bai Vs. Laxmi Bai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2591
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition, one under secti856n 397 read with S. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) is directed against the order, dated 24th June 1983 passed by the Sessions Judge at Bidar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 8/1982 allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 6-2-1982 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) in file No. RD/MAC/CR-25/81-82 and remanding the matter to him with a direction to hold a proper enquiry as contemplated by law and dispose of the matter as early as possible. 2. The facts leading up to filing this Revision Petition may briefly be stated as under : The Sub-Inspector of Police Chitguppa of Humnabad Taluk submitted F.I.R. on 5-1-1982 in Crime No. 3/1982 stating inter alia that there was a dispute between the first party members Smt. Laxmi Bai and Smt. Champa Bai on one hand and the second party member Smt. Sundra Bai on the other in respect of a land bearing S. No. 4/A of Hankuni village in Humnabad Taluk,...
Tag this Judgment!Vmk Menon Vs. Scientific Advisor
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2071
1. The petitioner is working as Office Superintendent Grade-11 in the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment, Ministry of Defence, Bangalore. He has held that post for the last 9 years. He has claimed that he was due for promotion, atleast for consideration for promotion, in August 1983. But he was not promoted even in 1984 though Respondents-4 to 23 were promoted in 1983 as per Annexure ,B. The petitioner has not been promoted to Grade-1 unjustly. contrary to the Rules and Guidelines issued in that behalf. He has therefore prayed for quashing of Annexure-B as well as Annexure - C, Annexure-C being the panel of promotions made for 1984. He has further prayed that a mandamus may issue to Respondents-1 to 4 to consider his case for promotion and direct them to promote the petitioner to Superintendent Grade-I with effect from August, 1983, when most of the Respondents-4 to 22 were promoted. It is clear from Annexure H produced by the petitioner himself that his case was considere...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4115
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada dated 20-10-1984 passed in Subject No. 515/84-85 produced as Annexure C granting a temporary permit to the second respondent on the Route Mangalore to Kollur via Moodabidri, Karkala, Ajekar, Mudrady, Hebry, Belange, Halady, S. Narayana, Arnpar, and back and also to quash the temporary permit issued consequent thereto and produced as Annexure-D.2. Regional Transport Authority, D.K., by its resolution dated 21-4-1984 passed in Sub. Nos. 16,11,22,19,18,15,26 and 23/84-85 has made a determination under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in respect of 9 routes. The route in question is one of them. That resolution has been challenged by the petitioners in Revision Petitions 153 to 160/1984 before the K.S.T.A.T. There was an interim order passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Transport Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4121
ORDERE. A. Swami,J.1. In these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the temporary permits granted to Respondents 2 and 3 under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the route Mangalore to Hermunde via Moodabidri, Karkala and back.2. It is not in dispute that there is a determination made in respect of these routes under Section 47(3) of the Act, by the first Respondent. It is also not in dispute that on the date of issue of temporary permits to Respondents 2 and 3, there was an order of restraint granted by the KSTAT on 16-7-1984 in Revision Nos. 153 to 160 of 1984 - out of them one Revision Petition which relates to the routes in question is Revision No. 157/84. The order of restraint passed by the KSTAT restraining the first Respondent from granting pucca stage carriage permits in respect of the applications filed by Respondents 2 and 3 and others, has been in operation even t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »