Karnataka Court July 1985 Judgments
Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC30; 1986(6)LC237(Karnataka); 1993(66)ELT147(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. This case was posted before me today for further orders. But, as agreed to by both sides, this case is treated as listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard. 2. 'The Karanataka Electricity Board, Bangalore' constituted and functioning under the Indian Electricity Act of 1910, a statutory authority charged with the duty of generating and supplying electrical energy in the State of Karanataka is the petitioner before me. From January, 1981 to December, 1982, the petitioner generated and supplied various quantities of electrical energy for agricultural purposes in the State on which also, it had paid a sum of Rs. 2,02,90,938.44 or so to the Union Government as excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) ('the Act') though payment of such duty was exempted by Government. 3. Sometime in 1984 or earlier, the petitioner made an application before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Lalbagh Division, Bangalore (...
Tag this Judgment!Basavegowda and Etc. Vs. S. Narayanaswamy (by Lrs.) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant225; ILR1985KAR3048; 1985(2)KarLJ389
Shetty, J.1. These four appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated Sept. 25, 1974 made by the Civil Judge at Mandya in O.S. Nos.21 of 1969 and 62 of 1970.Both the suits were by creditors, apparently under S. 53 of the Transfer of Property ACL. The credit or have impeached the bona fides of transfer of plaint 'A', 'B', 'C' schedule properties effected by their debtorChanniah.2. To avoid confusion, we consider it would be convenient to refer to the parties by their array in O.S. No. 21 of 1969.Channiah - defendant 1 is the father of defendants 4 to 7. He was an 'A' Class P. W. D. Contractor and the owner of 'A', 'B', 'C' schedule properties. Defendant 3 is the brother of Channiah, but taken in adoption by his uncle Defendant 2 is a businessman with whom Channiah used to buy his requirements.'A' schedule consists of a house at Mandya Town; 'B' schedule consists of six items out of which 5 are agricultural lands and one is a village house and 'C' schedule also consis...
Tag this Judgment!Balappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3286; 1985(2)KarLJ583
ORDER1. The petitioner Balappa has challenged the order of the Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1983 dt. 18th August, 1984, by which the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence under S. 302 read with S. 109 of the Penal Code against the petitioner and directed issue of summons to him to appear before his Court on 29-8-1984 for being tried along with accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said Sessions Case, who were proceeded with under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the I.P.C. 2. The matter arises in this way : 3. Two accused by names Kalingappa and Parasappa were charge-sheeted for an offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 I.P.C. for causing the death of one Bhimappa and they were tried for the said offence in Sessions Case No. 93/83 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge at Bijapur. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of the case. After examining those eight witnesses, an application was filed by the prosecution under S. 319 of the Cr.P.C. (the Code...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjunappa Vs. Joint Director of Industries and Commerce
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR657
K.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the notice bearing No. MSC/SR/424/84-85 dated 24-10-1984 issued by the 3rd respondent, produced as Annexure-A. He has also sought for quashing the order dated 31st May, 1984 bearing No. ANC. KGF. BEML/B 24/A 5/84/3627 (Annexure-H) passed by the first Respondent. Annexure G is a true copy of this order.2. By the aforesaid impugned order dated 31-5-1984 (Annexure-H,) the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,142-50 p being the arrears of rent up to 23-1-1984 due in respect of the public premises bearing No. B 24, situated in the Ancilliary Industrial Estate for B.E.M.L. at K.G.F. By the impugned notice (Annexure-A), the 3rd respondent has informed the petitioner that if the sum of Rs. 20,142-50p is not paid within tea days from the date of service of the notice, compulsory proceedings will be taken according to law for the recovery of the whole of the revenue stil...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ganeshmal JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR804
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for striking down the order dated 22nd May, 1984 bearing No. GSR/391(E)/ESS. Com/Sugar, issued by the Central Government, produced as Annexure-A.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order - Annexure 'A', is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in as much as it is arbitrary and imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on the trade. It is also further contended that it is not possible to exhaust the stock within ten days from the date of receipt of the stock ; therefore the condition that the stock of vaccum pan sugar of kandasari shall not be held for a period exceeding ten days from the date of receipt of the stock imposes an unreasonable restriction. It is also further contended that the authorities incharge of enforcement of the impugned order ate insisting that the stock of vaccum pan sugar of kanda...
Tag this Judgment!Ullal Raghuvir Rao Vs. Mrs. Savithri Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR931
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a tenant's revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has suffered an order of eviction by the Munsiff, Mangalore, in H.R.C. No. 210 of 1977. Eviction was sought by the respondents in these proceedings on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent and despite a written demand served on him, he failed to pay the same within two months and further that the premises in the occupation of the tenant was required for the bona fide use and occupation of the respondents or atleast two of them.2. Tenant resisted the Petition and had alleged that it was motivated by some ill-will the landlords had towards him on account of non-co-operation with the landlords evading to pay the income tax. That he had tendered the rent for November 1976 by Money Order which was rejected and therefore he did not further tender the amount despite receipt of notice in February 1977. He also stated that the requirement of one of the sons-in-law...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwanatha Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2460
Nesargi, J.1. A batch of Second Appeals have come up for hearing. These appeals relate to the question of declaration of the correct date of birth of the plaintiffs concerned in those appeals. As, on the discussion, it was found that a common question of law was likely to arise in all these appeals, the Court invited members of the Bar whether or not appearing in any of these cases, to assist the Court. Some of the Advocates of a number of years standing, did assist the Court. The Court is thankful to them.2. The appellants in this appeal were the defendants in the Trial Court. The Respondent plaintiff filed the suit in question for declaration that his correct date of birth is 9-11-1956 and not 10-12-1954 as noted in the School records of the defendants pertaining to him. He prayed for costs of the suit.3. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that he was born in his parents house on 9.11.1956; completed his early education in Government Primary Boys School, Shiralkoppa and then joined ...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Vilas Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1005
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the selection and appointment made of respondents 2, 3 and 4 to the posts of Assistant Professors of Surgery in the Department of Karnataka Government Health and Family Welfare Services (Collegiate Branch).2. The brief facts may be stated as averred in the petition and also in the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 5 as well as the statement of objections filed by respondent-4. Respondents 2 and 3 have remained exparte.3. The first respondent Karnataka Public Service Commission published in the Gazette dated May 27, 1982 notification by which they invited applications for 46 posts of Assistant Professors in the Karnataka Government Health and Family Welfare Services (Collegiate Branch) (hereinafter referred to as the Department). The Notification carried with it a statement showing the particulars of posts fo...
Tag this Judgment!Jayamahadevaswamy Vs. Krishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2586
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. This Petition is directed against the order dated 23-10-1981 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore in C. C. No. 1266/81 on his file issuing process against thepetitioner for an offence under Section 500 of the I.P.C.2. Respondent's complaint against the petitioner is in relation to an incident said to have taken place on 9-7-1981.3. The admitted facts are :4. In those days the petitioner was the Revenue-Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate of Bangalore North-Taluk. The complainant is a resident of village Mathkur, also of Bangalore North Taluk. There was a dispute in the village re. an alleged encroachment and obstruction of a public road in Sy. Nos. 77 and 78. In connection with that dispute one Shamanna and Basappa and others were on the one side and the complainant and some of the villagers were on the other side. There were complaints and counter complaints in the matter. There had thus arisen a revenue dispute. In that connection accompanied by his subordi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh N. Dixit Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2571
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. Truck bearing registration number MEZ 5593 belonging to the petitioner was seized by the Range Forest Officer. Sirsi (Sirsi) (R.F.O.) on 10-6-1983 afternightfall in a forest area near village Dasarakoppa within the range of the R.F.O. The R.F.O. seized the truck on the ground that the same was being used to smuggle forest produce belonging to the Government. He seized some logs and billets of Mathi trees from the truck. He also seized about 16,000 Cmtrs. offirewood lying by the side of the truck. According to him the Driver of the said truck and others who were with him ran away and escaped from being arrested.2.In accordance with Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act) the R.F.O. placed the truck and the other materials seized by him before the Dy. Conservator of Forests, Sirsi Division, Sirsi, who was also the Officer authorised to exercise powers under Section 71A (the Authorised Officer).3.The Authorised Officer issued a show cause notice to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »