Karnataka Court September 1985 Judgments
J.U. Prabhu Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3633
ORDERNesargi, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting that the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate II Court in Criminal case No. 1921/85 be quashed.2. The respondent filed the complaint in question on 1-6-1985. He complained that the accused had committed an offence by violating the provisions of Rule 81 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Rules and therefore was liable to be punished for having committed the offence under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. Certified Copy of the complaint is produced. It makes out that the respondent inspected the establishment in question on 27-2-1985 and observed the irregularities mentioned in para 4. It further states in para 5 that there-after, the respondent issued inspection report-cum-show-cause-notice No. Cl. (Cont) PE (24) 85-86 dated 27-2-198...
Tag this Judgment!Katte Shivappa Vs. Kori Eranna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR180
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a defendant's revision against the judgment and decree dated 5-11-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Hospet, in Small Cause Suit No. 56 of 1981 decreeing the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that he gave Rs. 2.000/- and Rs. 200/- in cash to the defendant on 5-7-1979 and that the defendant executed the suit pronotes on 5-7-1979 after receiving the cash. He did not pay the amount due under both the pronotes. Hence the suit.3. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that the consideration under the suit pronotes had not passed to him at all and that he executed the suit pronotes as the plaintiff promised that he would pay the amount later on and that the plaintiff did not pay the money at all at any time. He also urged that the plaintiff was also a money lender within the meaning of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, He also urged that he was a debtor within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act and that he prayed for dismissal of the suit....
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2439
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Petitioner herein is the Indian Oil Corporation which is a public sector undertaking of Government of India and registered as a company under the Companies Act. The petitioner has installations for the supply of aviation fuel at various airports/air force stations in the Karnataka State to cater exclusively to the needs of refuelling aircraft with aviation petrol. Two such installations are located at Bangalore Airport, HAL Complex and at the Air Force Station, Yelahanka.2. Government of Karnataka, by its Notification dated 29-7-1975 in exercise of its powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) granted exemption as per Annexure-B from payment of tax under the Act in respect of the four oil tankers referred to therein and belonging to the petitioner.3. It is necessary to reproduce the said Notification, which reads :-'Notification No. HD 32 TMT 75, B...
Tag this Judgment!Darshak Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR50; (1986)ILLJ253Kant
1. In this petition presented by M/s. Darshak Limited, a public limited company, questioning the legality of an interim order made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, the following questions of law arise for consideration : (1) Whether the Industrial Tribunal has the power to grant an interim relief otherwise than by an interim award (2) If so, what is the scope of such power 2. The facts of the case, which have given rise to the petition are as follows : (i) An industrial dispute between the workmen of the petitioner and the petitioner was referred for industrial adjudication by an order made by the State Government under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. One of the points of dispute referred for adjudication was point 19(b). It reads : 'Unit/Factory office bearers should not be transferred under any circumstances.' The above demand has been made by the workers for the reason that the branches of the petitioner are situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. During t...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Badigar Mattu Kammarar Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Vs. Krishnaj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3589
ORDERChandrakaujtaraj Urs, J.1. This is a tenant's Revision Petition against the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Dharwar.2. In H.R.C. Case No. 83/1982 the Landlord of the Petition premises sought for eviction on the ground that the tenant-Co-operative Society has not paid the rents inspite of a written notice of demand in that behalf having been served on the Society and that the Petition premises was required by the Landlord for his bonafide use and occupation; that the Municipality has issued notices that the building must be demolished and reconstructed or effective repairs to be made so that it would not be a danger to theinhabitants.3. The Munsiff on appreciating the evidence came to hold that the landlord had not made out a case and therefore dismissed the eviction Petition. Aggrieved by the same the landlord approached the District Judge under Sub-section 2 of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for the relief inter alia contending that the Learned Munsi...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudhan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR688
ORDERS----Enforceability on coming into force on due publication----Unless published in Official Gazette or otherwise rights of parties not affected.It is well settled that any inordinate legislation in the form of statutory rules or orders, in order to be enforceable against a citizen, it must come into force and it could come into force only on due publication. Though it is rot necessary that, it must be published only in the Official Gezette and other types of publication are not ruled out, unless it is published it cannot effect the eight of the parties. ...
Tag this Judgment!Gururaja Rao Vs. Krishnamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4178
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This revision is by the tenant. The eviction proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are pending in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Bellary. The Counsel for petitioner-landlord in the Court of the Munsiff made an application for appointment of a Commissioner, supporting his application with memorandum of facts signed by him, that application came to be allowed and as against the wishes of the landlord a holder in diploma inEngineering (retired officer) was appointed as Commissioner to examine the building in question as to its condition instead of a better qualified degree holder of Engineering suggested by the landlord's Counsel. Aggrieved by that he preferred a revision under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act to the District Judge, Bellary. The District Judge, Bellary, in HRC Revision No. 2/1983 on his file passed an order dated 13th June 1983 by which he rejecte...
Tag this Judgment!Siddamma Vs. Agarwal and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4071
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a landlord's Revision Petition under Section 113 of the C.P.C. It is directed against the order of the IAdditional District Judge, Dharwad, dated 6th October, 1982 made in CRP. No. 222/1979 on his file. The revision before the District Judge under Section 50(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was presented by the tenant who had suffered an order of eviction by the II Additional Munsiff. Gadag, in HRC. No. 44/1974.2. The landlord moved for eviction of that tenant who was one among several other tenants in a composite building belonging to the landlord on the ground that the whole of the building was required to be demolished andreconstructed according to the plan he got sanctioned. That ground is available to the landlord under Clause (j) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. The premises in question had been let out to the tenants for non-residential purposes. It will be useful at this stage to ...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Prema Manjunatha Gowda Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Kar)201; [1986]161ITR465(KAR); [1986]161ITR465(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (Central Act No. 34 of 1953) ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at instance of the accountable person ('the assessee') has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that neither the unmarried daughter nor the wife of the deceased had any interest in the property of the deceased while he was alive ?'2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts that are not in dispute. 3. One I. M. Manjunatha Gowda, son of I. S. Mallegowda of Agalkhan Estate, Chikkmagalur District, was a member of a joint Hindu Family (HUF) consisting of himself, his father and several other members. The Hindu undivided family owned extensive immovable properties. On...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Laxman Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1985
Reported in: (1985)51CTR(Kar)18; [1986]157ITR1(KAR); [1986]157ITR1(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of section 18(2A)(b) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1957) (the Act), and order No. GIR No. 92/79-80 dated December 19, 1981 (Annexure-A), made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer thereunder. 2. For the assessment year 1979-80, the petitioner filed his return under section 18 of the Act before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer disclosing taxable income for the said year along with the treasury receipt for having paid a sum of Rs. 5,532 being the taxes due thereon to the State. On September 20, 1980, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer completed the assessment for the aforesaid year in which he held that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 21,411 as taxes. 3. On the aforesaid basis, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on August 31, 1982, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner proposing to lev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »