Karnataka Court May 1985 Judgments
Rex Advertisers Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2323; 1985(2)KarLJ260
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. After service of notice, the respondent-Corporation, has put in appearance through its Standing Counsel Sri R.C. Castelino. The Statement of objections is also filed. Therefore, these petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. In Writ Petition No. 6078 of 1985 the Note dated 9-4-1985 bearing No. ARO/ADVT/275/78-79 of the Deputy Commissioner (REV), Corporation of City of Bangalore produce as Annexure - 'L' is challenged. In the connected Writ Petition No. 6080 of 1985, the same note which is produced as Annexure 'K' is challenged. Hence, these petitions are disposed of by a common order.3.1. The petitioners are advertising Agencies. They obtain the land on lease or licence from its owners for the purpose of putting up advertisement hoardings.3.2. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioners, that they had obtained certain sites on lease or licence from the respondent and put up the advertisement hoarding thereon.It is also necessary to mention that on the expi...
Tag this Judgment!Swamydas Vs. Krishnan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2367
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a tenant's Revision Petition under Section 115 C.P.C., seeking revision of the order of the District Judge at Mysore made in HRCRP. 148/82 on his file confirming the order of eviction passed against the Revision-petitioner-tenant by the II Additional Munsiff, Mysore in H.R.C. 552/79 on his file.2. The Respondent in this Revision Petition is said to be an allottee of the premises in question by the KarnatakaHousing Board. That the premises in question was leased by the Respondent to the petitioner is not disputed. At some point of time the petitioner failed to pay the rents agreed to be paid is also not in dispute. In any event, the said eviction petition which was filed in the Court of the Munsiff at Mysore both on the ground of non-payment of rents and on the ground that the landlord himself needed the house for his own use and occupation came to be allowed and hesucceeded in making out his case in both the Courts.3. What Sri K. Ramasubbaiah, Lea...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Ramesh Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence-iii, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3389; [1987]64STC143(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. In these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution by the common petitioner, the assessment orders dated 16th February, 1978, and 15th March, 1978 (annexures A and B) made by respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence-III, Bangalore (CTO), for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 respectively under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act') are challenged. 2. Petitioner claims to be an ex-partner of a partnership firm called 'the Mysore Steel Industries', Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18, against which assessments have been made by the CTO on 16th February, 1978 and 15th March, 1978, for the two years in question. He claims that the firm was dissolved on 1st April, 1974, and the assessments made thereafter under section 12-A of the Act without issue of notices on all the ex-partners of the firm, are illegal and in any event, cannot be enforced against the petitioner. 3. In support of his contention Sri Srinivasan st...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3373; 1985(1)KarLJ430
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition is the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) represented by its General Manager. The K.S.RT.G. constructed a modern bus-stand at Guledgud in Bijapur District for use of the travelling public. The estimated cost of the said bus-stand was Rs.3.5 lakhs and the petitioner applied to the second respondent-the Town Municipal Council, Guledgud, for necessary permission to put up the construction. The second respondent directed the petitioner to pay valuation fee at the rate ofRe.l /-per cent of the total value of the building and Rs.10/- towards permission fee as per Bye Law 27 of the Guledgud Municipal Council.2. This was resisted by the K.S.R.T.C. on several grounds, inter alia, that the KSRTC bus stand was meant for public utility and hence it may be exempted from payment of the valuation fee demanded. The 2nd respondent by its order dated 9-6-1978 (Annexure B) declined to grant the request of the petitioner.3....
Tag this Judgment!Raghavendra P. Mudhol Vs. Hanamant R. Kulkarni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant219; ILR1985KAR2362; 1985(2)KarLJ287
ORDER1. This revision petition is by the tenant against the order of the learned District Judge, Belgaum, in HRC. RP. No. 137/82 on his file.2. The revision before the District Judge was preferred by the unsuccessful landlord who had sought eviction in the Court of the Munsiff under S. 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petition was presented by the landlord on the ground that he required the same for his own bona fide use and occupation.3. Undisputed facts of the case were that the landlord was living in the upstairs portion while the tenant was occupying the downstairs portion Landlord claimed that they were all ten in number consisting of himself his wife, adoptive mother of the landlord, his two natural brothers and their wives and their children and in order to make their living comfortable they needed the downstairs portion also for the landlord's use and occupation. While the learned Munsiff conceded that landlord was living -w...
Tag this Judgment!Abbubakar Beary Vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR35; 1986(1)KarLJ316
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order made by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Recovery Officer, Puttur Sub-Division, Puttur, setting aside the auction of the property purchased by the petitioner and also directing re-sale of the same property.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :The 2nd respondent-Belthangadi Taluk Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited had obtained an award against the father of the 3rd-respondent in respect of money due from him to the Bank. The immovable property namely 2 acres and 71 guntas of wet Sand belonging to the judgment-debtor was put up for sale on 14-5-1979. The petitioner was the highest bidder. His bid for Rs. 2,000/- was accepted. According to the terms of the auction, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 300/- with the Recovery Officer on the date of auction. He also remitted the balance of the purchase money, of RS. 1700/- on 28-5-1979 i.e., within ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganayakamma Vs. Srinivasa Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2294
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Criminal Petition one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') is directed against the order dated 22-3-1984 passed by the Learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Srirangapatna in C.C. No. 24/1982 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner complainant also under the same provision requesting the Magistrate to state to the accused the particulars of the offences alleged in the complaint and not taken cognizance by the Magistrate.2. The matter arises in this way.3. The petitioner (who will hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed a private complaint for offences under Sections 120B, 166, 167, 198, 201, 217 & 417 read with Section 109 I.P.C. The Magistrate, after following the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV, took cognizance of offences under Sections 465, 423, 426 and 120-B read with 109 I.P.C. Thereupon the Court issued summons for the attendance of the accused since the offences for which cognizance was taken were...
Tag this Judgment!Yusuff Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2804
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Criminal Revision by the accused in C.C. No. 45 of 1983 on the file of the Special Judge (Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge) Bangalore is directed againsthis conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for contravention of Condition 3 of the licence granted to one Siddique under the provisions of the Karnataka Foodgrains (Retail Dealers) Licensing Order, 1964 as per the Judgment and Order dated 24th December, 1983.2. Certain Siddique who was the proprietor of Burma Stores, situate at No. 123, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore holds a licence under the Karnataka Foodgrains (Retail Dealers) Licensing Order, 1964 (for short the Order). The order was passed by the Government of Karnataka under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act). The accused was a Salesman-cum Clerk-under Siddique in his Burma Stores. On 21-3-1983 when Mritunjaya Shastry(P.W.1) Sub-Inspector of Food Cell, visited the Burma Stores run by...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Sundaram Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC128(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J. 1. These appeals are by one and the same assessee and are directed against two different but identical orders made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore (Commissioner), on 10th December, 1976, and 15th December, 1976, revising the orders of the appellate authority and restoring the orders of the assessing authority made under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 ('the Act'). 2. M/s. Cochin Malabar Estate Limited, Cochin, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, inter alia, owned certain rubber estates in the District of Coorg. Under two separate but identical agreements, the assessee purchased the rubber trees standing on the estates for valuable consideration for 'slaughter-tapping' them or cut and remove the trees, extract the available natural rubber or 'latex' and sell both of them. We are concerned in these cases only with 'latex' extracted by the assessee from the trees and sold and its exigibility to tax under the Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjunatha Ramachandra Kamath Vs. H.N. Kamath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2333
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Learned District Judge, D.K. Mangalore made in C.R.P. No. 6/1983 under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Petitioner in this Court is the tenant of the Petition premises. Petition under Section 21(l)(h) of the K.R.C. Act, 1961 was filed by the respondent in the Court of the Munsiff at Mangalore seeking possession of the Petition premises for hisbona fide use and occupation to start afresh his business in the sale of certified seeds,fertilizers and pesticides. The tenant resisted the Petition unsuccessfully before the Munsiff. The Munsiff came to the conclusion that the bona fide requirement of the landlord was established and therefore passed a decree for eviction. The tenant took up the matter in revision under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act before the District Judge, D.K. Mangalore. The District Judge agreeing with the findings recorded and reaso...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »