Karnataka Court October 1985 Judgments
K. Srinivasa Setty Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR523
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (KSP.J), these cases have been posted before a Division Bench for disposal.2. As the questions that arise for determination are either common or inter connected, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. The petitioners who are either registered owners or persons in possession of motor vehicles detailed in their respective writ petitions are exigible to taxes under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act No. 35 of 1957) ('the Act').4. All the petitioners have paid taxes due by them on their vehicles or the instalments permitted by this Court. But in making those payments, there were delays which naturally varies and differs from case to case which fact is not also disputed by the petitioners.5. On the basis of those delays, the Regional Transport Officers of the areas ('RTOs') either on their own in most cases and in a few cases with the prior approval of the Commissioner for Transport in Karnataka, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore University Vs. Ramachandran
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3774; 1985(2)KarLJ520
ORDERMahendra, J1.These appeals are by (the appellants who were) the respondents and are directed against the order dated 13-9-1984 of Chandrakantaraj Urs, J: allowing Writ Petition No. 21899 of 1980 filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein who were the petitioners therein. Writ Appeal No. 2073 of 1984 is filed by one Dr. K. Ranga, who was respondent-2 and Writ Appeal No. 2075 of 1984 is filed by the Bangalore University which was respondent 1 in the said Writ Petition. In the course of our order we will refer to the parties to their array in the original Writ Petition.2. The Bangalore University by its Notification Annexure B dated 30-4-1977 invited applications from qualified candidates for appointment to posts in the various Departments of the University including a post of Professor of Civil Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. B.M. Rajashekara the third petitioner,Dr. Siddappa the fourth petitioner, Dr. Ranga the 2nd respondent and several others applied for the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Air India Vs. S.V. International
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3983; 1986(1)KarLJ34
Nesargi, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is defendant-1. The respondent is the plaintiff.2. The facts held proved in this appeal are as follows. On 23-12-1970 the plaintiff consigned parcels consisting of pure silk Chiffon plain and printed materials in running length to Midland Bank Limited, No. 129, New Bond Street, London W.1 and intended for a business firm by name Rubane De Pairs Limited, No, 39-A, Maddox Street, London W1, to defendant-1 for purpose of delivery for carriage by Air. The appellant-defendant is aCorporation established under the Air Corporation Act, 1953. The parcels were received by defendant-1 on 23-12-1970. Defendant-1 issued the requisite Aid Bill marked Exhibit P-2. The value of the goods delivered for carriage was Rs. 12,606. The said parcels were lost, i.e., they were not at all delivered to the consignee in London.3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 15,843-65 calculating the same taking into consideration of the value of the goods lost at R...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Abdul Wahab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4028
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1.This Petition by the State is directed against the order dated 11-10-1984 of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Kanakapura, in C.C. No. 232 of 1982 on his file. By that order, the Learned Magistrate, exercising his powers under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stopped theproceedings. This was at a stage where the recording of evidence had not even commenced. The stoppage of the proceedings has in law the effect of discharging the accused. TheRespondent was the accused and he was being prosecuted on the allegation that he had committed an offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 read with Section 11 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act. 1964 (the Act). It may not be necessary to enter into the merits of the case nor to highlight the facts in great detail and that is for the reason that the order of the Court below terminating the proceeding mainly proceeds on a legal ground. The Learned Magistrate is of the view that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Manmad Ali Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR249
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. The accused in Criminal Case No. 2928 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madikeri have preferred this Revision against the judgment of that Court and also the confirming judgment of the Sessions Judge, Madikeri concurrently finding them guilty of an offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act) and sentencing each of them to suffer R-1 for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo R-1 for a further period of one year. The petitioners have preferred this revision from jail, where they are undergoing the sentence imposed upon them.2. The prosecution case was that on 29-8-1983, Head Constable-Chengappa (P.W. 1) attached to the Kushalnagar Police Station was on Patrol duty. He had noticed these two accused, sitting on the road-side in the Bychanalli area of Kushalnagar near a cycle shop. They were thus sitting on a bag containing something and which had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurunathsa Madusa Khode Vs. Transport Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3787; 1985(2)KarLJ527
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the demand notices dated 26-11-1981 (Annexures 'E' to 'H') issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Dharwar ('RTO') calling upon them to pay the amounts specified in the respective demand notices as additional taxes.2. The petitioners are registered owners of public carrier vehicles bearing Registration Nos. MEZ 4449, 4494, 5653 and 4896 respectively registered in the State of Karnataka and are exigible to taxes on the basis of registered laden weight ('RLW') of their respective vehicles under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957) ('the Act').3. On different dates mentioned in the respective demand notices, an Inspector of Motor Vehicles ('IMV') attached to the office of the RTO intercepted the vehicles when plying on public roads, checked them and found that they were carrying goods in excess of the RLW as set out in therespective demand...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhat Vs. I Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1574
ORDERKudoor, J.1. In this Writ Petition one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, one Krishna Bhat, owner of Petition-A' Schedule properties, has sought for a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order quashing the order dated 16-11-1981 Annexure-A, passed by the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal, Bantwal, granting occupancy fight in respect of 'A' Schedule properties in favour of the 3rd respondent-Narayana Gowda.2. The matter arises in this way :The 3rd respondent made an application on 23-8-1974 to the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, in Form-7 as required under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, claiming occupancy right in respect of S. No. 8/9A of Vittal Padnur Village of Bantwal Taluk belonging to one Mahalinga Bhatta as could be seen from the entry made in the General Daily Register (GDR) at Sl. No. 4712. In the year 1980, the 3rd respondent appeared to have filed a copy of Form-7 application said to be the copy of the application made by hi...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. A.P. Abdul Lathieef and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4032
ORDER1. This revision is by the State. It is directed against the order dt. 5-2-1985 of the Special Court, Mysore, in Cri. Misc. No. 15 of 1985. By that order, the Special Court purporting to exercise its power under the provisions contained in Chap. XXXIV of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (the Code) has released the truck in question in favour of the respondents. The order apparently appears to be one under S. 457 of the Code. He could not have invoked the other allied provisions for the reason that there was neither an enquiry nor a trial pending with him for any offence involving the vehicle in question. 2. The vehicle had been seized by this Tahsildar, Mysore, suspecting that it had been used to carry some essential commodity in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983 (the order). He had handed over the seized vehicle with the essential commodity contained in it to the Yelwala Police of Mysore for further action. The Police registered a cas...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Appaiah Laxminarayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3963; 1985(2)KarLJ506
ORDER1. This revision is by the State. It is directed against the order dt. 21-7-1983 of the JMFC, Chintamani in C.C. 337 & 338/81 on his file. By that order he has discharged the respondent who was the accused in the case. 2. The Court below had initiated the said proceeding against the respondent on the report (charge-sheet) laid by the Chintamani Police against him with the allegation that in his dealings in edible oil seeds he violated the provisions of the Karnataka Edible Oil Seeds Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 (the order) and thereby had committed an offence punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (E.C. Act). 3. The Court below has discharged the accused mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the police had no powers to investigate into any alleged offence under the Act at all and that power is only vested in the officers authorised by the State Government under Clause 17 of the Order. The second ground is, that even otherwise, in the matter of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjamma Vs. S.N. Suryanarayana Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant268; ILR1986KAR912; 1986(1)KarLJ104
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-Debtor No. 2 against the order dated 25-10-78 passed by III Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore in Ex. case No. 88/77 rejecting I.A. 12 filed by Judgment-Debtor ('JDr' for short) No. 2, under Or. 21, Rule 90, C.P.C.2. The sale was held on 30-6-78. One Shikshadevi, respondent No. 2 herein, bid the property for Rs. 50,000/- in the sale held in the Court and as she was the highest bidder, the bid was accepted.3. JDr No. 2 filed the application under Or. 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. challenging the said sale alleging that the sale proclamation was bad in law as it was not published in Kannada. According to her, as the sale proclamation was issued in English, nobody came to know about the contents of the sale proclamation or about the publication of the sale proclamation. She has then urged that she was the owner of the property and her name had not been shown as owner in the sale proclamation. On the other hand, the sale proclamation showed the name of JDr No. 1 as owner. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »