Karnataka Court February 1985 Judgments
Narayan Ishwar Hegde Vs. Vigneshwar Venkataraman Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1749
Nesargi, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal. His suit O.S. No. 28/69 on the file of the Munsiff, Bhatkal, came to be dismissed by the two Courts below mainly on the ground that it had been filed prematurely.2. Sri K.I. Bhatta, Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent-defendant submitted that he would not support the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below on the ground that the suit was not maintainable because it had been filed prematurely but the suit did not remain maintainable after 1-3-1974 as the subject matter of the suit became extinguished in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff was the permanent tenant of the suit schedule property. It is an areca garden measuring 2 acres 7 guntas situated in Konar village in Bhatkal Taluk. He sold the permanent tenancy right to the defendant on 18-4-1969 and executed the registered sale deed Exhibit D-4. On 20-4-1969 the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. Narayana Rao Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4103
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner, an Additional Director of Health and Family Welfare Services of the State Government, on deputation as Health Officer, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, has presented this Writ Petition, praying for quashing the appointment of Respondent 2 as the Director of Health and Family Welfare Services ('the Director' for short) and for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Government to appoint him as the Director.2. The Petition has come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the Respondents. By consent of the Counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner who was a Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare Services was promoted as Additional Director of Health and Family Services on 8-9-1982 (Annexure-B) in accordance with the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services Recruitment Rules, 1965 ('the Rules' for short). T...
Tag this Judgment!Somaiya Sugar Works Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC27; 1986(24)ELT252(Kar); [1986]159ITR464(KAR); [1986]159ITR464(Karn)
ORDER1. The petitioners are manufacturers of Sugar and during the period 1-12-1973 to 30-9-1974 they had produced excess sugar and had claimed a rebate under Notification No. 152/74, dated 20-11-1974 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules ('the Rules'). Under the notification a concessional rate of excise duty on each quintal of excess sugar produced at varied rates on levy sugar and free sale sugar, was payable as per the table. A reduced rate of duty was provided on the excess sugar produced by the petitioner-company as an incentive to produce more sugar. By applying the concessional rate of levy to the excess sugar produced, proforma credit of Rs. 33,79,904.30 Ps. was allowed as per the endorsement (Annexure E), dated 11-6-1975 issued by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum. The actual date on which this sum was taken to credit in the books of the Company was 13-6-1975. 2. On 3-4-1978, the third respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioners why a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Mineral Miner's Union Vs. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR915]; ILR1985KAR2833; (1986)ILLJ204Kant
ORDER1. In this Writ Petition presented by the Mineral Miner's Union, a trade union, representing its members, who are workmen of Kudermukh Iron Ore Company Ltd., (the company for short), the following questions of law arise for consideration. (i) Whether S. 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) requires the workmen employed in a public utility service to issue a fresh notice of strike, though they had issued earlier, a notice of strike in respect of an identical demand under that section, but could not go on strike, in view of the prohibition of the strike during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings under Clause (d) thereof, which automatically commenced with the issue of notice of strike in view of S. 20(1) of the Act, if the conciliation proceedings resulted in failure and concluded after six weeks from the date on which strike notice was given (ii) Whether in a notice of strike required to be issued under S. 22(1) of the Act, the date on which the work...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Shankar Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2249
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. As these Petitions can be disposed of on a short point, the same are taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners have preferred U.R.P.Nos. 106 and 107 of 1985, respectively, before the 2nd respondent against the resolutions dated 5-1-1985 passed by the first respondent in Subject Nos. 320 and 321 of 1984-85 respectively, resolving to reject the applications that may be filed by thepetitioners for grant of special permits in respect of vehicle Nos. C.A.A 4589 and M.E.D. 6589 for a period of three months from the date of communication of the resolutions.3. After the aforesaid resolutions were passed, the petitioners filed applications for grant of certified copies of the resolutions on 9-1-1985. The copies of resolutions were delivered to them on 6-2-1985. They have filed the aforesaid two Revision Petitions before the second respondent on 7-2-1985. Along with the Revision Petitions, the petitioners have also filed the applications for condonation of delay in pre...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. Bhogegowda Vs. District Magistrate, Mandya District, Mandya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant218
ORDER1. On an application made by the petitioner for locating a semi-permanent theatre on site bearing No. 633 of Halgur village, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District, the District Magistrate, Mandya District, Mandya (D. M.) complying with the requirements of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulation Act, 1964 and the Rules framed thereunder (the Act and the Rules), issued him a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 16-3-1981 (Annexure-A) for locating a semi-permanent theatre on the said site. Against the said NOC granted by the D.M., two of the objectors filed a revision petition before Government under S. 18 of the Act and obtained its stay. On 5-2-1982 Government dismissed the said Revision Petition (Annexure-B). 2. Without any loss of time thereafter, the petitioner produced the necessary building plans as required by R. 111-M of the Rules, before the D. M. seeking for his prior approval for the same to commence the construction of the building. But somewhat regretfully, the D. M. did not attend to...
Tag this Judgment!Parwatewwa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1257
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. This Petition is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Saundatti, dated 29-9-1981 (Annexure-E). By that order, determining the Petitioner as a surplus holder, she is asked to surrender 50 acres and 25 guntas to the Government.2. Challenging the impugned order, it was inter alia contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no proper enquiry has been held by the Tribunal in the matter; that her client had no opportunity to place her case therein and that, in the circumstance, quashing the impugned order, the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal according to law, It is her case that her client was not a surplus holder and therefore, was not liable to surrender any land at all as called upon.3. Besides hearing the learned Government pleader for the respondent State, having secured the papers from the Tribunal, I have also perused the same.4. There is considerable force in the submission made by the, learned Counsel for the Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Veeraswamy Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2298
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. An argument of 'abdication' strongly pressed, as such, upon me requires consideration and decision in this revision Petition.2. The petitioner here is the landlord of certain premises. In the Court below, he filed an eviction petition seekingrecovery of possession of that premises from Smt. Geetha Ramanujam, who was a tenant of that premises. The ground urged in support of the petition, was that of reasonable and bona fide requirement of that premises for his (landlord's) self occupation as permitted under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He gave evidence as P.W. 1 and produced documents, Exhibits P-1 to P-3, to support the said ground, Thereafter, the eviction petition was adjourned by the Court below to a future date for pronouncing orders thereon on merits. But, before rendering of such orders, the respondent 11 tenant voluntarily delivered possession of the said premises to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Nagabhusappa Vs. Laxminarayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1742
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is defendant No. l's revision against the Judgment and decree dated 6-12-1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Yadgir, in R.A. 173 of 1979, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 29-6-1979 passed by the Munsiff, Shorapur, in O.S. 67 of 1977 dismissing the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the defendants, who are his friends, borrowed Rs. 1,000/- from him on 22-12-1973 after executing a deed in his favour. It was agreed that the money should be repaid within one year. It was further agreed that in case of their failure to repay the money, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the said money by sale of R.S. No. 99 measuring 19 acres 18 guntas assessed at Rs. 32-19, situated at Mangloor. After the expiry of one year stipulated in the document, he called upon thedefendants to pay the money. He sent lawyer's notice and chits to the defendants requesting them to repay the money. Not-withstanding so many requests, the defendants did not repay the same...
Tag this Judgment!Sujatha Touring Talkies and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant21; ILR1985KAR2477
Puttaswamy, J. 1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases have been posted before us for disposal.2. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. All the petitioners hold licences called 'Touring Cinema Licences' issued in their favour by the concerned District Magistrates of the Districts ('DMs') presently under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) ('the Act') and the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 ('the Rules') for exhibiting films at the places detailed in their respective licences. The licences have been re-granted from time to time and were due for re-grant sometime before 3-5-1984 or immediately thereafter as is the case.4. After a series of amendments to the Rules, their periodical and endless challenges before this Court, which so far regretfully ended up only in abortive results, to which aspect I will have occasion to refer to it in so...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »