Karnataka Court September 1985 Judgments

Kedargouda Vs. Mallanagouda

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3958

ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. In this petition filed Under Section 397 r/w. S. 401 Cr. P.C., the challenge is to an order made by the JMFC, Ron, on 4-12-82 in C.C. 658/82 on his file issuing process to the petitioner for an offence under Section 302 r/w. 109 IPC.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner in the matter, a few facts which are not in dispute may be stated :The proceeding in the Court below in C.C. 658/82 was initiated by the first respondent Mallanagouda by filing a complaint therein under Section 200 Cr. P.C. (Code). Hiscase was that 4 persons mentioned in his complaint as Accused 1 to 4 had during the night between 13th and 14th of March 1982 at Arahunshi, Taluk Ron of District Dharwad assaulted Shantavva and Basanagouda and that due to that assault Shantavva had sustained injuries and Basanagouda had died: that they had done so at the instance of the 5th accused Kedargouda (petitioner herein): that, the Ron police who had registered a case for these offe...

M.S. Dakshina Murthy Vs. University of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In these Writ Petitions the petitioners, two of them Readers and one a Lecturer in Hind' in the University of Mysore, aggrieved by the memos issued by respondent - 1 University of Mysore which are at Annexures F, F1 and F2, have challenged the legality of the same. Those memos as they are termed are dated 24-4-1984.2. It is stated in the memos that pursuant to the report of the Vice-Chancellor on the enquiry into the allegations made against the candidates/persons mentioned therein and the decision of the Syndicate dated 6-8-1983 thereon, after examining the reply to the final show cause notices, they were kept out of the Examiner ship for a period of 5 years for giving room to suspect that there was liberal valuation in some cases. In Annexure-F the petitioner in W.P.9625/84 is penaalised, in Annexure-F1 the name of petitioner in W.P.9624/84 is mentioned and the memo at Annexure-F2 is couched in the same terms and the name shown therein is that of the pe...

N.S. Dhamankar Vs. Cantontment Board

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR4039; (1987)ILLJ401Kant

ORDER1. Petitioner who at the relevant time was an employee of respondent - 1 - Cantonment Board, Belgaum, has in this petition challenged the legality and correctness of the order made by the respondent-Board which is at Annexure Z-1 to the Petition. 2. It would be useful at this stage to set out the operative portion of the order : 'In the result, I modify the penalty levied upon the appellant by the Board, of dismissal from service to reduction to the lower post of Draftsman and direct his reinstatement in service with immediate effect. I further order that the period between his dismissal and reinstatement be treated as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances and no allowance be paid to him for the period for which he had been under suspension beyond the subsistence allowance already received by him. I also set aside the decision of the Cantonment Board forfeiting its contribution of Rs. 2306.85 towards his provident fund with interest accrued thereon. Sd/- A. M. Vohra Pune...

Lakshman Gouda Vs. the Karnataka University and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1986Kant239; ILR1986KAR3666

ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is a student at Basaveshwar Engineering College, Bagalkot, has challenged the validity of Ordinance 6 of the 1st respondent, Karnataka University. That ordinance provides that a candidate must pass, first year engineering examination in not more than five attempts, failing which he shall not be permitted to continue the engineering course in the University. Admittedly, petitioner has failed four times and has made his fifth attempt, the result of which is not yet known. Perhaps in anticipation of the impending disaster, he has presented this writ petition sometime in the middle of last year challenging the validity of the ordinance.2. The learned counsel has argued that in the State of Karnataka there is only one Act, which provides for the establishment of universities and therefore Karnataka University cannot have an ordinance of that type while other universities do not have it.3. I do not think there is any force in this contention....

Sanjeeva Shenoy Vs. District Judge

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR1691

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this application, the petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent No. 2-Corporation Bank to remove its locks put on the doors of the schedule premises forthwith and to return the petitioner's locks. The schedule premises in question is a non-residential premises bearing Door No. 4-92-1 situated within Madikeri Town limits at College Road, Madikeri.2. The schedule premises was leased to the petitioner for non-residential purpose. It is a public premises falling within the ambit of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Central Act No. 40 of 1971) as amended by Act No. 61/80 and 35 of 1984 (for short, the 'Act'). The Estate Officer in exercise of his power under the provisions of the Act, has passed an order on 12-11-1983 directing eviction of the petitioner from the schedule premises. It is not in dispute that the said order was also published in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the ...

Stumpp Scheule and Somappa (P) Ltd. Vs. Chandrappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3872

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by defendant-1 against the judgment and decree dated June 14, 1972 made in O.S. No. 12 of 1968, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore.2. Briefly stated the facts are these :A small plot of land measuring 1 aero 13 guntas in S. No. 139/2 described in the plaint as schedule 'A' is the subject matter of the litigation. It appears to be a valuable piece of land and perhaps the only asset of the plaintiff. It is situated near Koramangala Layout in Bangalore City. It lies adjacent to Bangalore-Hosur Road, the life-line between Bangalore and Madras. It is located amidst big factories, colleges, hospitals and residential buildings.3.There is a triangular fight for the suit land. Plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession of that land and he traces his title as follows :Dodda Annaiah Reddy and Chikka Annaiah Reddy were two of his predecessors. They were brothers. They were members of a Joint Hindu Famil...

Shyam Sunder U. Nichani Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ban ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1985(6)ECC219; 1985(22)ELT751(Kar); ILR1986KAR3232

1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Rubber products, which are exigible to duty under Tariff Item No. 16A of Schedule I to the Central Excises, and Salt Act, 1944, ('the Act'). On 19-11-1981 the petitioner entered into a sub-lease agreement with M/s. Regal Rubbers under which the petitioner acquired sub-lease rights in respect of premises, equipments and machinery, etc., of factory unit No. 1, situated at No. 122, Industrial Suburb, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The petitioner started production on 1-12-1981, and we are concerned with the clearances of the rubber products upto 31-3-1982. The petitioner applied and obtained licence - L4 - to manufacture the rubber products in the said factory. On 24-11-1981, the petitioner filed a classification list as required under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules ('Rules') for approval by the proper authority. In the said classification list it was declared by the petitioner that the manufacturer of rubber products was dutiable under Tariff Item N...

Mineral Sales (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3226

ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The Petitioner in all these cases is Mineral Sales Private Limited. The petitioner/Company is owning diesel Tippers for use in the mining operations carried on by the petitioner company. The tippers were acquired by the petitioner for exclusive use within the mining area. The petitioner requested the R.T.O. Hospet in respect of all the vehicles in question that they may be exempted from tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, since they were used exclusively within the mining area. The 4th respondent by his order dated 14-2-1983, which is similar in all the cases, refused to grant exemption relying upon the Notification No. HD 128 TMT 74, dated 8-5-1980. These orders are challenged in these Writ Petitions.2. The petitioner has produced a letter issued by the manufacturers of the tippers in question, namely Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, explaining that there is no difference between dumpers and tippers, though the terminology...

Ramachandra Dasharath Khade Vs. Mohamad Iqbal Dastagirsaheb Sangolli

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3741

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These are tenants' revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and are directed against the common order of the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, dated 22-10-1982 made in HRC. RPs. Nos. 22, 31 and 15 of 1981 on his file. Those revision petitions arose forconsideration of the Learned District Judge on account of the common order passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, on 6-10-1980 in HRC. Nos. 257 and 259 of 1977 on his file. Those eviction petitions were filed by the landlords who are Respondents 1 to 4 in this Court against 2 main tenants and 1 sub-tenant on the ground that they purchased the premises in the occupation of the tenants and the sub-tenant from the previous owner for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/-by virtue of a sale deed dated 12-8-1977; that the tenant had sublet the premises and that the purchase itself was made by the landlords to occupy the shops for their own use and occupation in order to carry on their t...

B. Satyanarayana Singh Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribuna ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR395

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 11-6-1984, passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in R.P. No. 8/81.2. The petitioner held a stage carriage permit on the route Vaddarahatti to Kampli with two round trips. The length of the route is 15 miles. In the year 1979, due to laches on the part of the petitioner to seek renewal of the permit it lapsed. In the meanwhile, Draft Scheme of Raichur was published by the State Transport Undertaking i.e. 3rd respondent Therefore, the petitioner had to file an application under Section 68F (1C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking a temporary permit on the route Voddarahatti to Kampli for two round trips, This application before it was filed a copy of it way also sent to the 3rd respondent as required by Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Karnatak...