Karnataka Court April 1985 Judgments
N.R. Somashakar Vs. Secretary, R.T.A.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3609
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1.In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 10-4-1985 passed by the respondent in No. RTA PR. SP. 404-467/85-86, produced as Annexure-E. By the said order, the respondent has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner for grant of special permits under Section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), read with Rule 127 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules (for short, the 'Rules').2. At the outset, an objection is raised by Sri Abdul Khader, Learned Government Pleader, that theperiods for which the special permits were sought have already expired; therefore the petition has becomein fructuous, hence the contentions raised in the petition need not be considered.3. No doubt, the periods for which the applications are filed for grant of special permits have already expired. If that is all that can be said in the matter, there is no necessity to consider t...
Tag this Judgment!Buddaiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-2
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Kar)28; [1985]155ITR277(KAR); [1985]155ITR277(Karn); 1985(2)KarLJ128
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee : 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the capital gains in respect of survey Nos. 193, 206 and 207 was assessable to tax for the assessment year 1974-75 ?' 2. The assessee is a HUF owning some agricultural lands in Kodihalli village situated within the urban agglomeration of the City of Bangalore. Survey Nos. 193, 206 and 207/1 of the said village were acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, in pursuance of the preliminary notification under s. 4 and final notification dated August 19, 1964, issued under s. 6 by the Land Acquisition Officer for, and on behalf of, the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB). 3. The possession of survey No. 206 was taken by the LAO, on April 21, 1973, and survey Nos...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. P.K.P. Abdul Hakeem and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2695; [1985]59STC203(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2.1. All the petitioners in the writ petitions and respondent in Writ Appeal No. 2765 of 1982 who was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12324 of 1982 (Reported as P. K. P. Abdul Hakeem & Co. v. State of Karnataka in [1983] 52 STC 205.) out of which the said appeal arises before us (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') are registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) (K.S.T. Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956) (C.S.T. Act). All of them are aggrieved by the actions of the assessing to the revising authorities as the case may be proposing to levy and collect additional tax under section 6-B of the K.S.T. Act on sales tax levied on them under the C.S.T. Act. 2.2. Whether the same is permissible or not is the short and intricate question that arises for determination in th...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4124; 1986(1)KarLJ330
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In all these three petitions, the petitioner is the same. It has challenged the temporary permits granted in favour of the second respondent in each one of these Writ Petitions.2. In W. P. No. 1793/1985 a temporary stage carriage permit granted in favour of the second respondent (Smt. Manorama A. Kumar) on the route Mangalore to Nallur for the period 1-1-1985 to 30-4-1985, in subject No. 655/ 1984-85 by the R. T. A. Mangalore is challenged. In W.P. 3602/1985 a temporary stage carriage permit granted in favour of the 2nd respondent (H. Prasad Ballal) on the route Nallikatte to Kemthur, for the period 1-2-1985 to 30-4-1985. in subject No. 729/1984-85, by the same R.T.A. is challenged. Similarly, in W.P. 3596/1985. Similarly another temporary stage carriage permit granted in favour of the 2nd respondent (K. Jeevandhar Adhikari) on the route Karvase to Udupi and Udupi to Karkala, for the period 1-2-1985 to 30-5-1985 in subject No. 723/1984-85 by the same R.T.A. is ch...
Tag this Judgment!Sakrappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1833
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The points that arise for consideration in these Petitions are of far reaching consequences on the implementation of theKarnataka and Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and therefore by my order dated 15-1-1985 I had invited the members of the Bar who were interested in assisting this Court to submit their views and accordingly in addition to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents in these petitions, S. R. Nayak, P. Ganapathy Bhat, T. R. Subbanna, F. V.Patil, Jayakumar S. Patil, B. Veera-bhadrappa, K. Krishna Bhat, K. Appa Rao, V.V. Upadhyaya, V. T. Rayaraddi, S. R. Bannurmath, K. S. Vyasa Rao, T. S. Ramachandra, Advocates, and Sri B. R. Nanjundiah, High Court Government Advocate, had submitted their arguments and I had the benefit of their views on the points for adjudication in these Petitions.2. The Petitioner in Writ Petitions Numbers 18168 and 18169/1981 claims to be the tenant of the lands bearing survey number 16, measuring 3 acres 29 guntas...
Tag this Judgment!G. Narasappa Vs. Kalappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2223
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the Judgment and decree dated 21-8-80 passed by the lower Appellate Court i.e. Civil Judge, Madhugiri in R.A. 154/78, reversing theJudgment and decree dated 27-10-75 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Madhugiri in O.S. 214/74, decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs and with interest.2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant on receiving Rs. 1,450/- executed the suit document on 15 6-71 agreeing to pay interest at 1% per month. Notwithstanding repeated demands the defendant did not pay the amount. Hence the suit.3. The defendant contended, amongst other things, that the plaintiff is a money lender and he did not hold a money lending licence at any time and that, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed. He also denied the execution of the document.4. The Munsiff, on scrutiny of the evidence, held that the defendant had executed the document on receiving Rs. 1,450/-. But, however, he held that the plaintiff was a money lender ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Shankaranarayan Vs. G. Srinivasa Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2217; 1986(1)KarLJ30
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. The revision by Claimant No.3 revision petitioner is directed against the order dated 23-7-76 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Bangalore in M.A. 210/74, affirming the order dated 11-7-74 passed by the Asst. Commissioner,Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore in Case No. BOA (DEV) 70/69-70 regranting the eastern portion of S Nos. 85 and 98 of Gokare Village and Sy. No. 13 of Attibele Village to G. Srinivasa Rao, Claimant No. 5.2. It is undisputed that one Subbanna was the holder of Shanbogue village office of Gokare, Attibele, Rayasandra, Binnamangala, Agalakote and Chikkamaranahalli villages. It is undisputed that the entire survey numbers 85 and 98 of Gokare village and survey number 13 of Attibele village were assigned or attached to that Shanbough office. The present revision petitioner is Claimant No. 3. Srinivasa Rao, in whose favour the said three lands were regranted is Claimant No. 5. The other three claimants are Nanjundiah, the father of Claimant No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Maganahalli Basappa Vs. Doddamani Basavarajappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2420
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a decree holder's revision against the order dated 10-12-1981 passed by the Munsiff, Harapanahalli, in Execution Case No. 108 of 1981 ordering the re-transmission of the execution of the decree to the court of the Civil Judge at Davanagere, which had transferred the decree to it for execution.2. The decree holder had obtained a decree in S.C. No. 176/78 against the judgment debtor in the court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere. The said decree was transferred by the court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere, to the court of the Munsiff, Harapanahalli. The Munsiff, Harapanahalli, held that the Munsiff at Harapanahalli had not got the same small cause powers as those of the Civil Judge at Davanagere. Therefore, the transferee Court was not a Court competent to entertain and hear and try the small cause suit filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere, and decreed by it. Therefore taking this narrow view of the matter, he ordered the re-transmission of the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ghouse Vs. the Secretary, Karnataka Board of Wakfs, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant12; ILR1986KAR1523
ORDER1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dt. 12th Mar., 1985, passed by the Board of Wakfs (hereinafter referred to as the Board') in No. KTW/CMC/35 SMA 83-84 constituting the Managing Committee of nine members for the management of the Wakf institution known as Jamia Masjid of Mattikote village, Shikaripur taluk, Shimoga District.2. The contentions urged by Sri K. Channabasappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner admit of following points for determination - (i) Jamia Masjid of Mattikote village has not been registered as Wakf under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), therefore, the Board has no jurisdiction or authority to exercise control over it and appoint a committee of Management; (ii) that even if it is assumed that such power resides in the Board, the constitution of the members of the Managing Committee is without the application of mind in that the order proclaims...
Tag this Judgment!Member Secretary, Karnataka State Board for Prevention and Control of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3005
ORDERVithal Rao, J.This Petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28-6-1982, made by the Learned 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in C. Misc. No. 71 of 1981, holding that he had nojurisdiction to grant interim order under sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows :The Karnataka State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, Bangalore, made an application under Section 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control ofPollution) Act, 1974, ('Act' for short) that the Respondents had discharged and continued to discharge the untreated effluent or trade wastes into a nalla joining Vishwabharathi river thereby it was apprehended that by reason of the disposal of the end untreated affluent, the water in the said nalla.and Vishwabharathi river was likely to be polluted. The Board sought a restraint order against the Respondents from discha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »