Karnataka Court January 1986 Judgments
Rudraiah Raju Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR587
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The first two Writ Petitions are public interest petitions, in which the petitioners have challenged the legality of an order of the State Government under which contract for bottling Arrack was granted to respondents 3 to 10 on the ground that a largess involving a total turnover of Rs. 50 crores had been granted to them, in flagrant violation of law and on collateral consideration. In the other petitions the petitioners therein have questioned the legality of the same Government order.2. The background and history of the cases are as follows : (i) Pursuant to the decision of the Government that arrack should be supplied to the consumers in sealed bottles or sachets, to avoid the possibility of adulteration, on 11th April, 1984, the Excise Commissioner invited applications from persons interested in undertaking the bottling of arrack at 18 places in the State most of which are District head quarters. The applicants were required to furnish their names and addresse...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Bank, Bangalore Vs. Blaze and Central (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Kant258; ILR1986KAR743; 1986(1)KarLJ260
Rama Jois, J. 1. This writ appeal is by The Indian Bank against the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6,889 of 1979 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of the Estate Officer made under S. 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, ('the Act' for short) and the order of the III Additional District judge and the Appellate Authority under the Act confirming the said order.2(e)4514(1) Whether there was likelihood of bias on the part of the Estate Officer vitiating the order of eviction? and(2) Whether the petitioner was denied of a reasonable opportunity by the Estate OfficerThe answer given by the learned single Judge on both these questions was in the affirmative. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the orders of the Estate Officer and of the Appellate Authority were quashed. In view of the answer to the two questions in favour of the first respondent, the learned Judge declined to go into the question of con...
Tag this Judgment!K.E. Goverdhan Vs. N. Krishna Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1024; 1986(1)KarLJ297
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 7877/73. The Learned Judge has allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the District Magistrate to reconsider the application of the first respondent for grant of licence in accordance with law.2. To state briefly, the facts are these : N. Krishnarao the first respondent has got a touring cinema theatre on the vacant site in a portion of Sy. Nos. 22/2 and 22/3 of Thavarekere Village, Bangalore South Taluk. He had the licence to run the touring cinema on the said site. On the expiry of the term of the licence, he made an application for renewal of the licence. That application was rejected on the ground that the possession of the said site upon the expiry of the lease in his favour was not lawful. Evidently the rejection was on the basis of Rule-6 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971, which reads :-'6. RECORDS RELATING TO OWNERSHIP OR POSSE...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Vazeer Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1322
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Government has accorded sanction under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 to prosecute petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 302, 305, 342 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, said to have been committed while he was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madhugiri. Thereafter, on proposal made by Director General and Inspector General of Police, petitioner has been kept under suspension as per impugned order dated 13-1-1986.2. Contention of Sri H. Subramanya Jois, learned counsel for petitioner, is that impugned suspension order is not due to contemplated departmental enquiry or pending of an enquiry, hence will not fall within the purview of Clause (a) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka State Police(Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules. Government can pass an order of suspension when the commission of an offence is under investigation or on trial, if any, only under Clause (b) of Rule 5. His submission is that in the instant case, investigation is over...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vardhini and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Kar)215; [1987]165ITR342a(KAR); [1987]165ITR342a(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN752(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the amount of compensation received by the assessee for surrendering its leasehold right for the remaining period of lease, was of capital nature (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that it was not open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to direct the assessment of the amount which has been held to be capital in nature as capital gains assessable to tax ?' 2. In order to appreciate the questions referred to us, it is necessary to notice in the first instance the facts as found by the Tribunal. 3. Under a lease deed dated March 22, 1963, the assessee, a partne...
Tag this Judgment!Mysodet (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)49; [1987]163ITR848(KAR); [1987]163ITR848(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 256 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure amounting to Rs. 25,119 has been rightly disallowed under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as being in the nature of entertainment expenditure ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. 3. The assessee, a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, is, inter alia, engaged in the business of undertaking 'Fumigation and Disinfection'. For the assessment year 1975-76 relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1975, the assessee before the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle I, Bangalore, inter alia, c...
Tag this Judgment!Gowramma Vs. Taluk Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1016; 1986(1)KarLJ406
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. Murlidher Rao, J., being of the opinion that the decisions of this Court in Ramegowda v. Sarojamma, 1980(1) Kar. L.J. 345 = ILR (Karnataka) 1980 (1), 67 and N. Shivakumar v. Sudarshau Trading Co. Ltd., I.L.R. 1984 (2) Karnataka 914 may require reconsideration, has referred the case to a Division Bench.2. Before considering the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, we may briefly refer to the facts of the case on hand. The facts are these :On January 10, 1969, one Devaiah of Marenahally Village, Malavalli Taluk, had borrowed Rs. 6000/- from Gowramma, upon hypothecating his house property under a registered mortgage deed. Oh October 21,1976, the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Act No. 25/76) (in short 'the Act') was brought into force. The Act was intended to provide relief from indebtedness to certain class of debtors like small farmers, landless agricultural labourers and persons belonging to weaker sections of the people. On May 12, 1977, Devaiah died w...
Tag this Judgment!Basavaraj Nagappa Mailwar Vs. Common Cadre Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR701; (1986)IILLJ36Kant
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are either common or inter-connected, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Prior to 23rd September, 1975, the Agricultural and Rural Development Banks (ARD Banks) formerly called as 'Primary Land Development Banks' (PLD Banks) established and functioning under Chapter XI of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959) ('the Act') were competent to recruit their personnel subject to the Rules made under the Act. S. 128A incorporated to the Act by the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act of 1975 (Karnataka Act 39 of 1975) on and from 23rd September, 1975 that stood further amended by the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act of 1976 (Karnataka Act 19 of 1976) (Amending Acts) empowered Government to establish Common Cadre Authority (CCA) to uniformly regulate the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of such class of societies as ar...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1086
Rama Jois, J.1. The appellant has presented this appeal against the order of the Learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition in which he had prayed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the special pay, gratuity and also permitting him to encash the leave due to him as on the date on which his appointment as member of the Sales Tax Tribunal was terminated.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: (i) The appellant was appointed as an Accounts Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal with effect from 2-3-1972 for a period of five years. Before his tenure of 5 years came to an end the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act came into force with effect from 1-1-1976. Under the provisions of the said Act the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was abolished. As a result the term of office of the appellant also stood terminated. By that time he had put in about 3 years and 9 months of service.(ii) The appellant presented the Writ Petition inter alia praying f...
Tag this Judgment!C. Vasudevachar Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3389; 1987(1)KarLJ372
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Though this petition is posted for orders, having regard to the fact that it can be disposed of on a short ground it is taken up for final disposal.2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 25-7 1984 bearing No. AEE(R) 80/19/84-85 passed by the 4th respondent produced as Annexure -A and the order dated 28-7-1984 passed by the 4th respondent bearing No. AEE (R) PO/19/84-85 produced as Annexure-B. The petitioners have also sought for quashing the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 bearing No, Nil dated 26-8-1984 produced as Annexure-C. They have also sought for quashing the resolution of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore dated 16-10-1985 passed in Subject No. 29(547) produced as Annexure-E.3. The order dated 25-7-1984 produced as Annexure-A is a provisional order cum notice, provisionally holding that the petitioners have put up an unauthorised construction in the second floo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »