Karnataka Court September 1985 Judgments
Hajee Ahmed Bava and ors. Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Sagar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1985
Reported in: [1985]60STC328(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. In W. P. No. 1218 of 1981 filed by the petitioners who is the owner of lorry bearing Reg. No. MEG 5711, the provisions of section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended by Act 27 of 1969, are challenged as beyond the competence of the State Legislature. 2. The petitioner's lorry, when checked by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO), Sagar, on 29th March, 1980 at Billeswar Village, Hosanagar Taluk, was found transporting 69 bags of arecanut without any documents in respect of the goods under transport. A notice was issued by the ACTO, Sagar, under section 28A(4) of the Act, to the driver and the petitioner, the owner of the vehicle, to show cause why penalty of Rs. 4,200 should not be levied for contravention of section 28A(2) of the Act. The statement of the driver was recorded on 29th March, 1980 and the reply was also filed by the petitioner stating that the arecanut belonging to nearby villagers was being transported in his lorry to Saga...
Tag this Judgment!Sunanda Vs. Lakshmi Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR995
ORDER 41 Rule 19 -- Provides remedy in case of dismissal under Rule 18 -- Appeal already admitted cannot be dismissed under Order 9 Rule 5.If an appeal is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 18 CPC a right is given to the party aggrieved under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC. In regard to the dismissal of the suit, the remedy is provided in Older 9 Rule 5(2) of CPC. It, therefore, follows that an appeal which has been already admitted cannot in law be dismissed tor non-prosecution by applying the provisions of Order 9 Rule 5 CPC....
Tag this Judgment!Prathap Kumar Vs. Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)KarLJ531
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is a graduate in Engineering from the University of Bangalore. He joined the course in the academic year 1981-82. Regulation-6 of the University concerning the B. E. Degree course provides for taking into consideration the performance of the students at the third and fourth year examinations for determining the class in which they pass i.e., to say first class, second class and third class. On the basis of that Regulation by taking the average of the performance of the last two years of the course, the petitioner has been declared second class. It appears from the material furnished by the petitioner himself that the Academic Council some time ago had appointed a Committee to reexamine the manner of declaring class and ranks. That Committee made a recommendation to the Academic Council. The Academic Council in turn recommended and resolved that the declaration of the class will be based on the fourth year degree examination only. That recom...
Tag this Judgment!Madegowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3945
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Interim order, dated 11-8-1983 made on I.A.I reads thus:-'I am satisfied that the petitioner is in lawful possession of the property and Respondents 3 and 4 without any lawful cause areinterfering with his possession. I, therefore, allow I.A.I and issue an injunction restraining Respondents 3 and 4 from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land referred to in the schedule to I.A.I.'2. In I.A. II applicant complaining of disobedience of interim order of injunction by respondents 3 to 5 (opponent 4 being deleted) has requested this Court to take suitable action for wilful disobedience of injunction order. In para 4 of the application, after referring to request made to Police to render necessary help for protection of his possession and to give effect to the order of this Court, states that on account of counter complaint by opponents 1 and 2, 3rd opponent has registered two criminal cases in Crime No. 89 of 1983 and 93 of 1983 ag...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Azeez Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2446
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.In these two Writ Petitions the two orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, as per Annexures 'C' and 'D' are challenged.2. The Writ Petitions arise out of (1) refusal to accept the surrender application; and (2) consequently the notice of demand issued as per Annexure-B. Two appeals were filed against the order and the demand notice before the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Banglore, in Nos.TXA.32 and 31 of 1983-84, who also dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by these orders these Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging them.3. A goods vehicle bearing No. MDL 3344 met with an accident on 17-5-1982. On 20-6-1982 the petitioner surrendered all the documents and claimed exemption from the payment of tax for the period 1-6-1982 to 31-8-1982. Along with the surrender application the petitioner produced the tax paid receipt, Registration Certificate and the Insurance Certificate. It was mentioned in th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raghurama Rao Vs. H. Venkatesh Nayak
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3592
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a tenant's Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is directed against the order of the Learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. The order of the District Judge is dated 12-4-1982 made in CRP. No. 134/1979 on his file. Thatrevision was by the landlord who had failed to secure eviction of his tenant from the petition premises in the Court of the Munsiff, Udipi. The Learned Munsiff in HRC.No.78/1976 on his file declined to grant an eviction on the ground that the landlord had not established reasonable requirement though bona fides were not doubted. In the result, he had rejected the petition. Therefore, the landlord's revision before the District Judge. The Learned District Judge mainly took into consideration the oral evidence of the landlord in regard to his intention to set-up one of his sons who was disabled and not very bright in studies, in an independent business which would give him some occupation...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Neelkant Babanagare Vs. Krishna Bala Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3597
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1.These are landlord's Revision Petitions under Section 115 C.P.C. In these three Revision Petitions he has assailed the common order passed by the District Judge, Belgaum, in H.R.C.R.P. 32,33 and 34 of 1982 on his file. TheRespondents in these Petitions are the tenants. The premises in question are non-residential premises of small dimensions fetching a rent in the range of Rs. 16/- to Rs. 17/- or less. In the year 1975 he presented a Petition for eviction of the tenants, not only the present Respondents but also some others who occupied the adjoining shops situated onNational Highway No. 4 at Nippani town. Four months before the filing of the Petitions he had issued notice to the Respondents calling upon them to vacate the premises as he intended to demolish the premises in question and put up a new construction. Some 4 years prior to the filing of the Petition he had obtained Municipal licence for suchconstruction. He also urged the ground that the tenant...
Tag this Judgment!B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4054; 1985(2)KarLJ517; (1987)ILLJ398Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner is an employee of the Government of Karnataka in the Department of Labour. In this Writ Petition he has made the following prayers : (1) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the scale of pay of Rs. 120-220 from the date of reporting for duty by the petitioner on 17th October, 1960 and the scale of pay of Rs. 150-270 from 1st January, 1961 under the 1961 Pay Revision Rules. (2) Declare the transfer of the petitioner from the Factories and Boilers Department to the Labour Department on 2nd May 1963 to a post in scale of pay of Rs. 120-240 under the 1961 Pay Revision Rules to be illegal and direct the respondents for a posting to a post in the scale of pay of Rs. 150-270; and (3) For consequential benefits. The facts asserted by the petitioner as evidenced by the Annexures and the Additional Statement may be briefly stated and they are as follows : He was appointed by an order dated 14th October, 1960 made by the Inspector of Factories, Mangal...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Thimme Gowda Vs. Thimme Gowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant204; ILR1986KAR908
ORDER1. This is a revision by judgment-debtor No. 6 against the order dt. 72-1980 passed by the Munsiff, Maddur, in Execution Case No. 127 of 1978, overruling his objections. 2. According to the learned counsel Sri Ranga Rao, for the revision Petitioner, both the decree-holders, who had obtained the decree, had died before the institution of the present execution proceedings, and that the present decree-holders, who claim to be the legal representatives of the original decree holders, cannot proceed with the execution, without obtaining a succession certificate as contemplated by S. 214 of the Succession Act. That the original decree-holders, who had obtained the decree, have died, is not disputed before me at all. 3. Section 214 of the Succession Act reads as - '(I) No Court shall (a) ..................... (b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jotiba Demanna Patil Vs. Purushottamlal Ramlal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4189
ORDERKulkarni, J.1.This is a revision by the petitioner against the portion of the order dated 9-4-1980 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1980, continuing the attachment over the remaining 1/10th share belonging to opponent No. 2.2. One Prabhakarlal filed a suit in O.S. 159 of 1940 for general partition against opponents 1, 2, 10 and others. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit and a final decree was passed in the year 1962. The suit property bearing CTS No. 1755 situate in Kirloskar Road, Belgaum, was allotted to opponents 2 and 10 together. Thepossess in was taken by them on 29-11-1974. Thereafter, it appears that O.S. 34 of 1946 was filed by opponent-10 against opponent-2 in Dharwar Court for partition. In that suit CTS. No. 1755 was allotted to opponent - 2 only.3. Opponent - 3 is the wife and opponents 4 to 9 are the children of opponent No. 2.4. CTS. No. 1755 was taken by the present revision petitioner from opponent-2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »