Karnataka Court September 1985 Judgments
Bharatiya Veterinary Educational Society, Bangalore and ors. Etc. Etc. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1988Kant293; ILR1987KAR3615
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. W.P. N9. 12587/85 is by Bharatiya Veterinary Educational Society and three others (all of them are collectively referred hereinafter as 'the society' or as society and its co petitioners). W.P. Nos. 14696 and 18238/1985 are by 102 petitioners, who are referred as the 'students'. The first two respondents are common in these writ petitions. In the writ petitions filed by the students, the society is imp leaded as the 3rd respondent and the College in question is the 4th respondent..2. The society seeks the quashing of S. 6A of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (a State enactment - referred hereinafter as the Act'), by declaring the said section as unconstitutional. In the writ petitions filed- by the students, they seek a direction to the State Government to initiate an appropriate action against the society and the college., by invoking S. 27-A of the 'Karnataka Societies Registration Act, in the light of S. 6-A of the Act. They also seek provis...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Suresh N. Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC171; 1986(25)ELT657(Kar); ILR1986KAR332; 1986(1)KarLJ147
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the Union of India and the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, is directed against the order dated 13th August, 1984 made in Appeal No. 187 of 1983 on the file of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, setting aside the order, dated 18th April, 1983 made by the Deputy-Director, against the respondent, confiscating 2200 U.S. Dollars seized from the respondent and imposing penalties aggregating to Rs. 2,500 for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. There having been delay of 77 days in filing this appeal, appellant has filed I.A.I. to have that delay excused. That application is hotly contested. 3. The last date for the lodgement of the appeal before this court was, it is not disputed, 20th November, 1984. But the appeal was actually filed on 22nd January, 1985. 4. Two affidavits dated 21st January, 1985 and 7th August, 1985 respectively are filed in support of I.A.I. What emerges there...
Tag this Judgment!Habibulla Vs. Lakshani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4079
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These four Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 C.P.C. are disposed of by the following order :2. It is to be stated that all the petitioners are common tenants of the single landlord (a lady) who filed the eviction Petitions under Section 21(l)(j) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act in HRC. Ncs. 27, 28, 29 and 30 of 1980 in the Court of the Munisiff, Chickmagalur.3. The pleadings brief as they were are to the following effect:The Petitioner has purchased the entire house property bearing Muncipal No. 1808/2045/2046 from Smt. Janakamma under the Sale Deed dated : 30-11-1979. The Respondent is the tenant of the ground floor which is the portion of the entire property and is detailed in the schedule here below at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- where he is running a petty box shop at a monthly ground rent of Rs. 25/-.The petitioner is residing in one portion of the house and her husband is running his shop in the rented premises elsewhere.The p...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Peirce Leslie India Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: [1987]66STC371(Kar)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. This revision petition is by the State of Karnataka ('Revenue') and is directed against the order dated 12th June, 1978 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ('Tribunal') in Appeal STA No. 153 of 1976. 2. M/s. Peirce Leslie India Ltd., a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, which is the respondent assesses is, inter alia, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of cashew-nuts, cashew and cashew kernels. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. For the assessment period from 1st October, 1970 to 30th September, 1971, the assessee in its return filed under the Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore ('ACCT') disclosed a purchase turnover of Rs. 35,47,962.75 of cashew-nuts and a sales turnover of Rs. 13,56,548.61 on cashew kernels extracted or pressed from out of the aforesaid cashew-nuts. On the said sales turnove...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR77; 1986(1)KarLJ299
ORDERKudoor, J.1. The facts that gave rise to this Criminal Petition one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are these :Venkatachalapathy & Co., is a partnership firm doing wholesale business in edible oils. In addition to a wholesale licence for edible oils, they also possessed a producer-dealer licence and a commission agency licence for edible oil. In the course of the commission agency business, the firm received 9495 Kgs. of cotton seed refined oil on 22-8-1981 which was dealt by them in their business up to 22-11-1981 and another consignment of 550 tins of solvent extracted groundnut refined oil (vikas brand) on 27-8-1981 which was similarly dealt by them upto 28-10-1981. On 27-11-1981, Hanumanthe Gowda, Circle Inspector Police, Food Cell, Bangalore, inspected the firm and verified the account books of the firm relating to the dealings in edible oils. While verifying the account books, he found that the firm, in respect of 9495 Kgs. of cotton seed refined oil rece...
Tag this Judgment!Michael Vs. Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR412
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is a III LL.B., law student who took the examination held for the academic year 1984-85 in May, 1985. At the end of the examinations conducted by the university of Bangalore - 1st respondent herein, the petitioner has obtained 32 marks in Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing, 8 marks In Labour Law and 26 marks in Administrative Law. He applied for revaluation of his answer scripts in all the three subjects. After revaluation in accordance with the prevailing ordinance of the University-1st respondent; his results have remained, in those subjects, unchanged. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached this Court inter alia contending that the method of referring to only one external valuer as opposed to the earlier practice of referring to more than one examiner, by the amendment brought about by the Syndicate is void as the Syndicate does not have the power to amend the ordinance in the matter of conducting examinations. Another limb of the abo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Dinakar V. Shanbhag (by Lr. of K. Vaikunt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(Kar)20; [1986]160ITR197(KAR); [1986]160ITR197(Karn); [1986]24TAXMAN690(Kar)
K.S. 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 each of these references made under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be held that the withdrawal of amounts by the coparceners from Hindu undivided family funds amounts to partial partition and, consequently, it becomes individual assets 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to relief under section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?' 3. In order to appreciate the questions referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. 4. The assessees who are members of a bigger Hindu undivided...
Tag this Judgment!Stumpp Schuele and Somappa Ltd. and Vs. State of Karnataka,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ543Kant
ORDER1. In the two Writ Petitions, presented by a public limited Company-Stumpp, Schuele and Somappa Limited and one of its share-holders, the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether S. 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) which requires the permission of the appropriate Government for closing down an industry to which part V-B of the Act applies is void on the ground that it is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India ?' 2. The facts and circumstances which have given rise to the above question, briefly, are as follows : (i)(a) Prior to the amendment of the Act by the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1976, there was no condition imposed by any of the provisions of the Act requiring an owner of an industry to secure the permission of the appropriate Government to close down the industry. Similarly there was no such condition for effecting lay-off or retrenchment. With the object of ...
Tag this Judgment!Byrappa Vs. B.W.S.S.B.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1697
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to remove or cause the removal of the tap fixed at the place denoted in Annexure-A at their costs forthwith.2. The case of the petitioner is that the properties bearing Nos. 13 and 14 situated in First-Cross, Sampigehalli Extension, normally known as Karagappa Garden, Mission Road, Bangalore, belong to him and he is the absolute owner of the same; that the respondents without his permission have put up the water tap at point-A marked in the sketch produced as Annexure-A; that unless the area covered by the tap is acquired or consented to by the petitioner, the respondents are not in law entitled to put up the water tap.3. The respondents have entered appearance and filed the statement of objections. It is the specific case of the respondents that the area where the tap is fixed is a slum area and there are several huts an...
Tag this Judgment!Balasaheb Venkatesh Khasbagh Alias Kulkarni Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3898; 1985(2)KarLJ569
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal, Belgaum, dated 10-6-1976, by which occupancy rights have been granted in favour of Yellappa Tippanna Ramannavar in Survey No. 48 of Khasbag village and in favour of Mallikarjuna Balappa Ramannavar in Survey No. 16 of Khasbag village, Belgaum Taluk. Respondent-3 filed Form No. 7 for grant ofoccupancy rights in Survey No. 48 of Khasbag village and respondent-5 filed Form No. 7 in respect of Survey No. 16 of Khasbag village. There have been some litigations in the past between the owners of the lands and the present Respondents 3 and 4. One of those proceedings, pertaining to resumption of land under Section 14 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act'), was initiated by Lakshmi Bai, mother of the petitioner.2. It is the case of the petitioner that in a family partition dated 30-1-1961, these two lands have fallen to his share and, therefore, he ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »