Karnataka Court December 1985 Judgments

Dr. G. Ramakrishna Vs. Chancellor

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR0289

ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. Petitioner who was a candidate contesting for the membership of the University-Syndicate has challenged the election of the second respondent and has sought for a declaration that he be declared as elected to the Syndicate. Petitioner is a Reader in English. He is a member of the Academic Council. He along with five others contested for the election to the Syndicate, The election is governed by the Bangalore University Statutes which provide the system of preferential representation by means of Single Transferable Vote. In the election so held, the petitioner, respondent-2 and four others secured the following first preferential votes; petitioner - 25 ; Respondent- 2 - 23 ; Dr. Chowdiah - 16 Dr. M. P. Venkatappa - 15; Dr. C. S. Sivarudrappa - 10 and K. E. Radhakrishna - 5, Since no one had secured the quota, the Returning Officer had to resort to the Rule of exclusion. Radhakrishna was first to be excluded Followed by Sivarudrappa, Venkatappa and Dr. B. N. Chow...

K. Shantharam and ors. Vs. A. Rama AmIn and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1987Kant1; ILR1986KAR1199

ORDER1. This is tenant's revision and directed against the order dt. 28-8-1982 passed by the 11 Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, in HRC No. 66/71 and confirmed by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, by his order dt. 22-1-1983, in CRP No. 103/82.2. The short question that arises for decision is: Whether the issue of existence of relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant should be tried as a preliminary issue. The learned Munsiff, following the decision of this Court in the case of Mahammad Iqbal v. Mohamad Gous Lalmiya, : AIR1982Kant35 has held that such an issue cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. The District Judge also having confirmed the order made by the Munsiff, the tenant has approached this Court.3. It would appear that some different opinion was expressed in CRP No. 1401/79 decided on 13-7-1983 and the matter has therefore been admitted. I have gone through the said decision. Although the order proceeds on the basis that there are catena of decisio...

Workmen of Modern Mills Vs. General Manager

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR1302; (1986)IILLJ329Kant

ORDER1. An interesting question arises on the proper interpretation of S. 3 of the Payment of Bonus Act (Act). Though this point is no more res integra in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court Workmen of Binny Ltd. v. Management of Binny Ltd. & another, : (1985)IILLJ564SC and Workmen of HMT Ltd. v. National Tribunal [1973-II L.L.J. 100], the applicability of the provisions of that Section to a given set of facts arises for consideration. 2. The petitioners in this petition are the workmen of Modern Mills Limited. It is not in dispute that prior to the order of amalgamation made by the Bombay High Court amalgamating the company known as Sundatta Food and Fibres Division (Sundatta Company) with Modern Mills Ltd. Sundatta Company was functioning as a separate legal entity and the petitioners were workmen of Sundatta Company. This amalgamation took place on 12th October, 1977. The order of amalgamation provided that the assets and liabilities of Sundatta Company had been transfer...

Tata Oil Mills Company Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Comme ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1986]62STC369(Kar)

ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner, the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited, Bangalore, is common in these writ petitions. The petitioner is having its branch office in Bangalore for the purpose of marketing its products. The petitioner appointed Messrs. Gekayel Enterprises, Bangalore, as one of their commission agents under an agreement entered into between them. The sales were being effected by the agent to various dealers on wholesale basis and the sales tax was collected by the commission agent. 2. For the assessment periods 1st April, 1976, to 31st March, 19777, and 1st April, 1977, to 31st March, 1978, it was seen on verification by the department that tax for the two periods had not been paid by the Gekayel Enterprises. Therefore, a proposition notice in form No. 31-A was issued on 8th March, 1979, for the year ending 31st March, 1977, and on 17th December, 1981, for the year ending 31st March, 1978, produced as annexure B in each of the writ petitions. After hearing the re...

Ramakrishna Setty Vs. Property Manager, Csi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR979

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. At a very late stage in the suit the Learned Principal Munsiff, Tumkur, has made an order appointing the Sub-Registrar having jurisdiction over the suit schedule property Commissioner to value the same as of the year 1980, the year in which the suit was filed. He has also directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, be made a party and copies of the plaint etc., may be furnished to him. He has purportedly exercised that power under Section 19 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come to this Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C. inter alia contending that the question of Court fee and market value of the suit properties was specifically in issues Nos. 6 and 7 and parties had led evidence and therefore there was no need for enquiry under Section 19 of the Act.2. I do not think the Learned Counsel's contention can be accepted by this Court. By enacting Sec...

Lakshminarayana Hariyachar Vs. Divisional Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR532

ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases between one and the same contesting parties in relation to several agricultural lands are closely inter-connected, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. We, therefore propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. During the period from 1942 to 1945 one Hariyachar of Coimbator City of Tamilnadu State, a Hindu by religion and a Chartered Accountant by profession, with a passion for agriculture and horticulture, bought a number of agricultural lands bearing different survey numbers and extents situated at Varuna, Janthigalli and Dandikere villages of Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, in all measuring about 120 acres from their previous owners for valuable consideration. All those lands except Survey No. 208 of Janthigalli village measuring about 10 acres, are contiguous to each other and form one compact block of 110 acres and we will hereafter refer to the area of 110 acres and Sy. No. 208...

inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Vajram Setty an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Kar)154; ILR1986KAR336; [1986]159ITR746(KAR); [1986]159ITR746(Karn)

Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. In these petitions made under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'), the petitioner, who was the appellant in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 17 of 1976, has sought for certificates of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against our order made in those cases on March 6, 1985. 3. On these petitions, the office has raised an objection as to their maintainability under section 261 of the Act. We have perused the office objection and heard Sriyuths K. Srinivasan and G. Sarangan, learned counsel for the petitioner in these cases, and Sri S. P. Bhat, learned advocate, who had taken notice for the respondent in each of these cases on the same. 4. Sriyuths Srinivasan and Sarangan contend that the terms 'any judgment of the High Court delivered on a reference' occurring in section 261 of the Act comprehend all order made ...

M. Basavaraju Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (iii), Enfor ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1986(1)KarLJ142; [1986]62STC294(Kar)

ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. He was due in a sum of Rs. 43,119 towards sales tax outstanding to the State of Maharashtra. Since the petitioner defaulted in paying the arrears of tax, action was taken under the Revenue Recovery Act (Central Act 1 of 1890) (hereinafter called the Act) and a certificate for recovery was forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (III), Enforcement, Bombay City Division, Bombay, to the Collector, Bombay, for onward transmission of the said certificate to the Collector, Bangalore, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner-defaulter resides. 2. On receipt of the certificate (annexure B) for recovery from the Collector, Bombay, the Collector of Bangalore initiated proceedings for recovery from the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings in this writ petition. 3. The only prayer made in the writ petition is to quash the notice dated 16th May, 1984 (annex...

Town Municipal Council Vs. Vijaya College

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR2895

ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Petitioner is the Town Municipal Council, Mulki. The Order of the Civil Judge and the Sessions Judge, Mangalore (Exts. B and A) are challenged in this Writ Petition.2. Petitioner-Municipality demanded tax in respect of buildings owned by Vijaya College, Mulki, under Section 124(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, ('the Act'). This demand was resisted by the respondent-institution before the C.J.M., Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in an appeal filed under Section 150 of the Act. It was held in the appeal that the buildings owned by the respondent, which are used for charitable purposes, were entitled to exemption from imposition of property tax.3. Against the said order, the Town Municipal Council preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Mangalore, under Section 150(2) of the Act. The Sessions Judge upheld the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and agreed with the reasons given for allowing the appeal and dismissed the revision fil...

Wajid Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In Writ Petitions 9915 to 9977 of 1985, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs with reference to the shops mentioned in the Schedule to the petitions :'(ii) to restrain the respondents from demolishing the Bunk Shops belongs to the petitioners, as described in the Schedule by issue of writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order or direction ;(iii) issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioners from the schedule shops till alternative accommodations provided to them in the new building in the City Market ;(iv) To declare that the respondents are estopped from evicting the petitioners without following the due course of law, and to protect the right of petitioners under Articles 14, 19(1) and 300-A of the Constitution(v) and to restrain the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Shops a...