Karnataka Court August 1984 Judgments

Kodandapani Vs. Director of Text Books and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR301

ORDERChandrakantaraj URS, J.1. The Petitioner is working as a Proof Examiner in the Government Text Book Press at Mysore. He was originally appointed as Proof Reader Division III. But by an order dated 14-6-1967 made by the Superintendent of Text Book Press, Mysore, he was temporarily promoted to officiate as Proof Examiner on Rs.80/-in Grade Rs.80-150. That pay scale applicable to Proof Examiner has since been revised. He has continued to work as Proof Examiner since the date* W.P. No. 12819 of 1977 Dated 20th August 1984of the temporary order of promotion. He made several representations to his superiors seeking fixation of his pay scale in accordance with the revision made from time to time. Those representations met with limited success. While thanking the authorities for giving him the arrears inrespect of the pay due to him in the post of Proof Reader Division III, he requested that his pay may be fixed in the Grade of Proof Examiner IInd Division the post in which he has been wo...

M.N. Pushpavalli Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3733

ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. Under a registered Gift deed dated 5-4-1980 (Annexure-A in W.P.No. 21236 of 1983) one Smt.Vedavalli gifted immoveable Property bearing Municipal No 21/1, 5th Temple Street, Malleswaram, Bangalore, fully described in the Schedule to the said Deed to the petitioner in W.P No. 21236 of 1983. In the said deed, the value of the said property was stated as Rs. 10,000/- and the stamp duty payable thereon under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 34 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was paid which also has been registered by the concerned Registering Officer under the Indian Registration Act of 1908.3. On a reference made by the Registering Officer of the said document, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Detection of Under valuation of Stamps, Bangalore (herein-after referred to as the D.C.) issued show-cause notice No. MVD. 1287/80-81...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1989]175ITR215(KAR); [1989]175ITR215(Karn)

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The question referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Naini factory did not constitute a new business but as expansion of the existing business at Bangalore ?' 2. The assesses-company had established a unit at Naini and for the assessment year 1970-71, it claimed deduction in respect of certain sum as revenue expenditure incurred in that establishment. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected that claim while the Tribunal allowed it, recording a finding as follows : 'The two factories belonged to the Indian Telephone Industries, Bangalore, and for all practical purposes, it was an expansion of the business of the existing unit of the factory. The overall control of the business of the two factories at Naini was conducted...

P. Nirmala Vs. R. Anthony Raj

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1985Kant47; ILR1984KAR1015

Sabhahit, J. 1. This reference under S. 17 of the Divorce Act is by the III Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore City, seeking for confirmation of the decree dt.24-7-81 passed by his predecessor, for dissolution of marriage, by his letter dt.20-4-1982.2. The petitioner, Nirmala was married to the respondent R. Anthony Raj on 26-41967 at St. Joseph's Church, Mysore and according to her they lived together as husband and wife till 16-10-1977. They were last residing in Bangalore. A boy and a girl are born to her out of the wedlock. She has further averred that when the charm of married life faded, the respondent started ill treating her. She has particularly averred that she was ill treating by her husband during the months Oct. 1975, Dec. 1975, Mar. 1976'and Oct. 1977. She also averred in her petition that her husband committed sodomy on her and sought for dissolution of marriage.3. The husband remained absent during hearing. The petitioner filed an affidavit in proof of her allegat...

Nagoji Rao Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1984KAR1206; 1984(2)KarLJ309; (1985)ILLJ205Kant

ORDERHakeem, J.1. This Writ Petition has come up before us on a reference made by Rama Jois, J. 2. The Petitioner, who was a Tahsildar in the Service of the State Government, has challenged the validity of the notice and the notification dated 1st April, 1976, issued by the Government compulsorily retiring him from service under the provisions of Note. 1 to Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958. 3. The Petitioner originally joined service as a Second Division Clerk on 20th March, 1944 in the composite State of Madras. On the merger of Bellary district from 1st October, 1953, the petitioner came to be allotted to the former State of Mysore, while he was working as a First Division Clerk. After his allotment in the Revenue Department of the State, he was promoted in the first instance as a Taluk Sheristedar in August 1965, later on as Deputy Tahsildar in March 1969 and ultimately promoted to the post of Tahsildar in January 1973. 4. It appears that when the Petitioner was ...

V. Srinivasan Vs. the Sub Registrar, Hiriyur and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1984KAR989; 1984(2)KarLJ334

Sabhahit, J.1. This is a reference under S. 54 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (Act No. 34 of 1957). made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to this Court stating the case referred and seeking for the opinion thereon of this Court.2. The Managing Director of M/s. Bangalore Trading & Financing Corporation (Private) Limited, Bangalore, presented a lease deed dated 12-2-1981 executed by him on the same day in favour of M/s. Vanivilas Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, before the Sub-Registrar, Hiriyur, for registration. The Sub-Registrar impounded the document and in exercise of powers vested with him under S. 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued notice to the present ant directing him to pay stamp duty of Rs. 11,200/- and, on hearing, levied stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 5/- under the provisions of S. 39 of the Act, by his order dated 6-3-1981.Aggrieved by the said order of the Sub Registrar and Deput...

Seetharamiah Vs. Land Tribunal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR975

ORDERMalimath, C.J.1. The appellants had presented applications under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,), to the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in their favour in respect of certain lands. The Land Tribunal having rejected their applications,the appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal in Writ Petitions Nos. 4891,15819 and 15819 and 15820/79. The Learned Single Judge, by a common order madeon 15-7-1980, dismissed the said Writ Petitions. Hence these appeals. 2. The Land Tribunal has, after elaborately considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, written a well considered order dealing with all thecontentions urged by the rival parties. The Land Tribunal had given ample opportunity to all the parties of adducing evidence in support of their respective cases. The Learned Single Judge after carefully considering all the contentions has rightly come to the conclusion that on merits there...

Sree Eswara Rice Mill Industries, Shimoga and Etc. Vs. Deputy Commissi ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. At the stage of preliminary hearing Sri M. R. Achar, learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, he has put in appearance for the respondents. 2. In these petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the seizure and consequential proceedings held pursuant thereto are illegal and without jurisdiction. They have also sought for issue of a direction to the respondents to release the seized commodities. 3. The different quantities of paddy and rice were seized from the premises of the petitioners. Pursuant to the seizure, the first respondent has also passed orders on 17-3-1984, produced as Annexures A, B and C under S. 6A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), directing the seized commodities to be taken towards levy by the KFCSC Ltd./FCI, shimoga and the amount thereof be deposited in the P.D. Account of the Deputy Commissioner. ...

B.V. Narayana Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1985Kant99; ILR1984KAR631

Venkatachaliah, J. 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting question as to the scope of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Petitioner seek a mandamus to the State Government to consider and dispose of their representation dt.10-4-1983 as to the question of declaring the 'Attara Cutcherry', a Government building in which the Karnataka High Court is housed, as a 'Protected monument' under S. 4 of the said Act. The petition is filed as sequel to the Government Order No. DPAR/188/SHC/82 dt. 24-3-1982 which has accorded administrative approval for the demolition of the existing 'Attara Cutcherry' and for the construction of a new High Court Building on the site. This petition is before us on its reference to a Division Bench by Swami, J.2. Petitioners in their efforts to avert the demolition of this ancient building, which they cherish as a cultural-heritage and as an enduring sour...

M.N. Laxminathaiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1984KAR943; 1984(2)KarLJ272

1. This appeal is by the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 15636/81 challenging the order of the Learned Single Judge only to the extent the Learned Single Judge has declined to quash the preliminary notification.2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows :-The Government of Karnataka issued a preliminary notification dated 28-2-1981 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), to the effect that the six lands mentioned therein are required for the purpose of development of industries by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, and that it intends to acquire the said lands. Narasegouda who was admittedly the owner of the said lands was presumed to be the owner and his name was mentioned in the said notification published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 12-3-1981. But the said Narasegouda died on 7-3-1981 a few days before the actual publication of the noti...