Karnataka Court April 1986 Judgments
N.G. Purushothama Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR116
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as amended by Karnataka Act No. 43 of 1976 is void, unenforceable as neither in accordance with the proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution, previous sanction of the President is obtained to the Bill, nor assent of the President to the Karnataka Act No. 43 of 1976 is obtained under Article 255 of the Constitution. He has also sought for quashing the Notification No. SMD 168 RGN 85, dated 16-1-1985, produced as Annexure-A. The petitioner has also further prayed for a declaration that Sub-clause (37) of Section 2 of the Act, suffers from excessive delegation and to strike down the same.2. The 3rd respondent has filed the statement of objections. Sri Devadas, learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamood Khan Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR235
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, originally the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:(i) to quash the Endorsement bearing No. E(1) 105/85-86/ PSC, dated 16-5-1985 issued by the first Respondent, produced as Annexure-B.(ii) to direct the first Respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection to any one of the posts in Category-II of the State Civil Services.Subsequently, the petitioner has been permitted to amend the Petition and seek the following reliefs :(i) to declare the latter portion of the NOTE below Rule 4(3) of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'] as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.(ii) to declare the selection of Respondent-2 to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Land Records pursuant to the Notification dated 20th September, 1982, as being violative of Article 14 of...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahimsab Vs. Faridabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2251; 1986(2)KarLJ65
ORDERPatil, J.1. In this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 12-1-1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 78/83, whereby he has dismissed the application made by the petitioner for re-admitting the Revision Petition filed by him and dispose of the same on merits.2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent made an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate, Hangal, in Mis. No. 19/83 and succeeded in obtaining an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month. The petitioner, it would appear, was not present and had not participated in the proceedings before the Magistrate. He approached the Sessions Judge in revision questioning the legality and correctness of that order of maintenance made by the Magistrate in his absence. For one or the other reason, the Counsel for the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.C. Davis
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1120; [1986]161ITR518(KAR); [1986]161ITR518(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In these separate but identical 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 the following questions of law for the opinion of this court for 11 assessment years of the assessee : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the annuity of Rs. 1,500 per mensem received by the assessee in terms of the will of her late husband cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years in which the trust has been directly assessed (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that section 165 of the income-tax Act, 1961, is to be applied ?' 2. In order to appreciate these questions, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. 3. One Arthur John Davis o...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Aluminium Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2339
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.These two Petitions are disposed of by the following common order.1. Petitioner in the first of the petitions is Jindal Aluminium Limited which has described itself as a manufacturer of aluminium products, inter alia, extruded aluminium pipes and other components which go to make what is popularly described as Sprinkler Irrigation Equipment. Similarly, petitioner in the second of the petitions Associated Irrigation Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd., is also a manufacturer of Sprinkler Irrigation Equipment as a small-scale industrial unit, though it does not manufacture either the components or the aluminium pipes of specified sizes. Both claim to be in this field for considerable period with sufficient experience.2. Petitioner in the first of the petitions has alleged that it was the normal practice of the Government of the State of Karnataka to invite tenders for fixing rate contracts in respect of the Sprinkler Irrigation Equipment needed by its various departme...
Tag this Judgment!L. Murthy Vs. Commissioner for Transport
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3057
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Order, dated 18-2-1986 of the Commissioner for Transport (first respondent) keeping petitioners under suspension pending regular departmental enquiry is challenged, in these Writ Petitions.2. Petitioner in first Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 3696 of 1986) is a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles and petitioner in second case (Writ Petition No. 3697 of 1986) is a Stenographer in the Office of the Regional Transport Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'RTO'), Kolar.Case of petitioner in first Writ Petition is that pursuant to a direction given by RTO on 24-1-1986 to check and inspect motor vehicle bearing No. ADC 3999 while circulating a complaint received regarding its misused and/or in discharge of his duties as Inspector of Motor Vehicles, intercepted said vehicle on 30-1-1986 at about 7-45 p.m. at. Palar Bridge, when vehicle was on its way to Bangalore. from Tirupathi. Immediate defects found are noted in check-slip-Annexure-C and certain other defects no...
Tag this Judgment!Adappa Bhau Magdum Vs. Shripal Savant Chinchawade
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3019
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by defendant-1 against the order dated 12-6-1984 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi, in O.S. 8 of 1977 dismissing the application filed by defendant-under Section 148 CPC.2. O.S. No. 8/77 has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative for refund of the money paid as advance. The suit was decreed on 3-10-1983 in the following terms :'The suit is partly allowed. The plaintiff is not entitled to the specific performance of the contract as prayed for. Defendant-1 shall pay to the plaintiff Rs. 20,000/- together with future interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation of the amount and also the proportionate costs of the suit provided that if defendant-1 pays to the plaintiff Rs. 11.200/-on or before 31-5-1984, the plaintiff shall accept the said amount of Rs. 11.200/- in full satisfaction of the suit claim and the entire decree shall be treated as fully...
Tag this Judgment!Ferro Concrete Company of India (Steels) Limited and anr. Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: [1987]64STC352(Kar)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. As on 1st November, 1956, on which day the new State of Mysore now called Karnataka comprising of the areas specified in section 7 of the States Reorganisation Act came into being, the municipal laws prevailing in the different integrating areas of the new State, provided for the imposition of a duty or tax called 'octroi' considered to be an archaic and obnoxious levy by many in the country. The uniform Karnataka Municipalities Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1964) that came into force from 1st April, 1965, and the uniform Municipal Corporations Act of 1976 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1977) that came into force from 1st June, 1977, in the cities of Bangalore and Hubli, Dharwad and on the appointed dates in other places provided for the continuance of the levy of octroi by the local authorities in the State. On the incessant demand of trade, indus...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maganathi Amba Devi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)137; [1986]162ITR796(KAR); [1986]162ITR796(Karn); [1986]28TAXMAN37(Kar)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Division, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, 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 Tribunal was right in holding that the settlement deed dated September 21, 1972, did not result in an outright gift of an immovable property and that this deed and the agreement of September 22, 1972, have to be read together ?' 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 and her husband, M. Vasudeva Rao, who were the owners of certain immovable properties situated in the City of Bangalore settled them in favour of Sri M. Ramachandra Rao and Smt. M. Rajani, their son and daughter, respectively, under a registered settlement deed dated September 21,...
Tag this Judgment!N.G.E.F. Vs. Poonacha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3205
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal comes up for preliminary hearing. Ordinarily, while disposing of Writ Appeals either by admitting or by rejecting at the stage of preliminary hearing, this Court does not give any reason. But out of deference to the Counsel who argued the matter at length, we may briefly indicate our reasons.2. C. K. Poonacha, the respondent, was one of the six Security Superintendents in the appellant-NGEF which is a factory employing about 6000 workmen including officers. The factory had a scheme for encouraging Family Planning and as per that scheme an employee or his spouse undergoing sterilisation operation would get Rs. 1,500/- as medical reimbursement and Rs. 200/- as incentive - in all Rs. 1,700/-Liberty was given to the employees or their spouses to undergo tubectomy or vasectomy operation, as the case may be, in any Nursing Home or by any doctor ; but they had to produce the certificate of the doctor stating that they had undergone sterilisation ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »