Karnataka Court February 1986 Judgments

Assistant Regional Transport Officer Vs. Nagaraj

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR1270

ORDERRamakrishna, J.1. In this Appeal by the State, the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 5395 of 1980 is called in question.2. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows :--Respondent is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. APC 4699 Admittedly, as on the date. when a case was lodged before the Magistrate it was not covered by any permit. The respondent, however, Intimated the non use of the vehicle in question for the period from 1-11-1977 to 31-12-1978 inasmuch as according to the respondent, the vehicle was surrendered along with the documents.3. The undisputed fact further discloses that on 2-6-1978, the vehicle was found plying with full complements when it was shopped by a Motor Vehicle Inspector. Therefore, the authorities prosecuted the respondent before the Magistrate. The Learned Magistrate, having found the respondent guilty under Section 12, convicted him and imposed a penalty, of Rs. 4.290/-, an amount...

Parvathi Bai Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3258

ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the provisional order dated 20-51-983 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Frazer Town, Bangalore City Corporation, under Sub-section (1) of Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976; and also the Order passed under Sub-section (3) of Section 321 of the said Act, by the very officer, produced as Annexures A and B respectively.2. It is not in dispute that the alleged unauthorised construction which is directed to be demolished is a touring cinema theatre situated in Survey No. 13/1 of Gangenahalli- division No. 46.3. In The Commissioner, Bangalore City Corporation v. Sangeeth Theatre & Anr., WA No. 1515 of 1885 D.D. 30-8-1985 it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court as follows :'The only question raised in this appeal is whether the proviso to Section 304 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 is attracted to const...

Premier Irrigation Equipment Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 are accused Nos. 1 to 11 respectively and respondent No. 2 is the complainant in P.C.R. No. 1/85 on the file of the Special Court, Bangalore. On 5-12-1985 respondent No. 2 filed complaint in the Court-below against the petitioners alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the 'Act') read with Clause 3 of the Mild Steel Tubes (excluding seamless tubes and tubular according to A.P.I. Specification)(Quality Control) Order, 1978 and S. 120B I.P.C. 2. The learned Special Judge referred the said complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bangalore, for investigation and report under S. 156(3), Cr.P.C., 1973 (for short the 'Code'). Hence this petition by the accused under S. 482 of the Code for quashing the said proceedings. 3. The main ground urged by Mr. Devaraju, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the Special Court has no power under S. 156(3) of the Code to refer the complain...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Kar)312; [1988]173ITR374(KAR); [1988]173ITR374(Karn)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In these consolidated references 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 as many as seven questions of law for the opinion of this court for one and the same assessment year of the assesses. In order to appreciate the questions referred, which will be Noticed and dealt with, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. 2. M/s. Motor Industries Company Limited, Bangalore, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture of automobile ancillaries, is the assesses and the assessment year to which all the questions relate is 1974-75 relevant to the accounting year ending on December 31, 1973. 3. First, on the foreign loans secured for the purchase of machinery, the assesses made certain payments, however, incurring extra liability in Indian...

Precision Telecom Products Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and or ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1986(9)ECC25; 1986(24)ELT235(Kar)

ORDER1. M/s. Precision Telecom Products, Bangalore, which is the petitioner before us, is a partnership firm of partners engaged in the manufacture of transmitters and other components for telephones that are ultimately manufactured by the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (ITI). The petitioner is an ancillary unit of the ITI and has that unit in the Industrial Estate of ITI. 2. The ITI that ultimately manufactures telephones entrusts the manufacture of certain components to the petitioner on 'job work' basis. The raw materials supplied by the ITI are used in the manufacture of transmitters and components and they are then returned to the ITI, collecting the job charges from the latter. In the payment of excise duty dutiable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act') the petitioner had excluded the raw materials supplied by the ITI and returned to it on job work basis. 3. But in the show cause notices dated 27-11-1980/1-12-1980 and 24-4-1981, issued to the petitioner under...

Narayanappa Vs. Tahsildar and Returning Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR2683

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Though this petition is listed in the category of Preliminary hearing, by consent of learned Counsel on both the sides, the case is heard for final disposal.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order bearing No. Nil, dated 9-12-1985 passed by the Returning Officer for holding elections to the Bangarpet Taluk Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Bangarpet (respondent-1), produced as Annexure-E. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to respondent-1 to proceed with the process of election in accordance with the calendar of events published by him vide Annexure-A, excluding the candidature of respondent-2 for 'Kuppanahalli' constituency.3. Respondent-1 issued the calendar of events on 26-11-1985 as per Annexure-A proposing to hold an election to the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent Society on 15-12-1985. 29-11-1985 was the date axed for publication of the lis...

Town Municipal Council Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR1369

ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In W.P. 1602 86 the petitioner No. 1 is a Municipal Council and petitioner No. 2 claims to be an Ex-Municipal Councillor. In W.P. 1879/86 the petitioner claims to be a resident of Koppa Town in Chickmagalur Dist. The petitioner in W.P. 2280/86 are citizens of India and they also claim to be rate-payers of Town Municipalities of Krishnarajapet and Bellur in Mandya Dist.2. In W.P. 1602/86 there is an application filed by the petitioners seeking an amendment to the Writ Petition. By the amendment the petitioners want to add a prayer regarding the validity of Section 128 of Karnataka Act No. 20 of 1985 as amended by Karnataka Ordinance No. 19 of 1985 and also for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to implement the notifications issued pursuant thereto.3. As in all these petitions the validity of Section 126 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayats Samithis, Mandal Panchayats & Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983(Karnataka Act 20 ...

Galappa Vs. Bellary City Municipality

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR250

ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In this Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the resolution bearing No. 491 dated 3-2-1986, passed by the Special General Meeting of the City Municipal Council, Bellary.2. The petitioner is a Councillor. He has attended the Special General Meeting in question. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner by Learned Counsel Sri Kolar that the Special General Meeting of the Council was convened on 3-2-1986 for the specific purpose of passing the resolution expressing want of confidence in the President, and there was quorum for the meeting; as such it could not have been adjourned and it ought to have transacted the business It did not transact the business and simply passed a resolution adjourning the meeting. That the resolution passed by the Special General Meeting adjourning the meeting is illegal because it is opposed to Sub-section (3) of Sections 47 and 56 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 19...

Poonacha Vs. New Government Electric Factory

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3181

ORDERBopanna, J.1. The petitioner employed as a Security Superintendent by the respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the management) has challenged the older of dismissal passed against him with effect from 5-6-1985 on the ground that the said order of dismissal is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and it also smacks of victimisation and unfair labour practice. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ved Praksh Gupta -v.- Delton Cable India (P) Ltd, : (1984)ILLJ546SC and in the light of the amendment to Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act (for short the Act) raising the upper limit of salaries drawn by supervisors to Rs. 1600/- so as to enable them to qualify themselves for the relief to which they are entitled to under the Act, there could be no doubt that the petitioner was a workman though he was holding the post of Security Superintendent. Thus, the various contentions raised by the petitioner could have been the subject matter of an indus...

State of Karnataka Vs. M. Chandrappa and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR1210; 1986(1)KarLJ338

Patil, J.1. The State has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dt. 31-3-84 passed by the J.M.F.C., Mudigere, in C.C. No. 861/1984, on his file, acquitting respondents-accused (1) & (2) of the charge of the offences punishable under Ss. 504, 353 R/W 34 IPC, levelled against them. 2. A-1 M. Chandrappa is a teacher A-2 H. Manjula is his wife PW-5 Chikkegowda being police constable at the time of the incident was attached to Kalasa Police Station. PW-4 N. Shivanna, who is the Head Master of the school, where A-1 was working, it would appear, had given a complaint to the police. A1 was under an impression that some police had come to make inquiry into that complaint given against him. On 10-11-1982 when PW-5 who had gone out to Gummankhan Estate in search of some know Depredator and while returning back from there was waiting at Hirebail to catch a bus, it is the case of the prosecution, A-1 accompanied by his wife A-2 went to the bus-stop, where PW-5 was...