Karnataka Court May 1986 Judgments
M.N. Shivappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2472; 1986(2)KarLJ146
Rama Jois, J.1. In these Writ Appeals, the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether under Section 6A of the Karnataka (Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition Act of 1935 ('the Act' for short), an Archak is entitled to occupancy rights even if he was not cultivating the lands belonging to a religious institution for a period of three years ?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :-i) The Act provided for the abolition of Religious and Charitable Inams in the area of former State of Mysore. Section 3 of the Act provided that, with effect on and from the date of vesting, all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar in all communal lands, cultivated lands etc., shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Mysore, free from all encumbrances. Section 4 provided that, Kadim tenants cultivating the erstwhile inam lands, shall be entitled to be registered as occupants. Section 5 provided for registering the permanent tenant of erstwhile inam lan...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Shripadrao Kulkarni Vs. Tanaji Hariba Shelar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2133
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the judgment and decree dated 11-10-1984 passed by the Civil Judge, Chikodi, in S.C. No. 61 of 1983, on his file, dismissing the same.2. The plaintiff urged that the defendant, on receiving Rs. 1,000/- in cash from him on 10-12-1980, executed the suit promissory note. The defendant did not pay back any money. Hence, the suit to recover Rs. 1,360/-. The defendant resisted the suit and also urged that he was a 'debtor' within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980.3. The trial Court held that the defendant had received Rs. 1,000/- from the plaintiff on 10-12-1980 and executed the suit promissory note. It also held that the defendant was a 'debtor' under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, and hence, came to the conclusion that the whole debt was discharged and wiped out. Taking this view, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence, the revision.4. The conclusion of the Court below that the defendant, on receiving Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Satyanarayanaswamy Education Society Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2161; 1986(2)KarLJ72
Rama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal is presented against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant against the order of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Chitradurga, by which the appellant was directed to close down the school started by it without securing the recognition from the Department.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows; The appellant-society started anew private high school at Syagale in Davanagere taluk during the academic year 19.81 - 82 without securing the requisite permission/recognition under the Grant-in-Aid Code. This was brought to the notice of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions by the representation of the villagers dated 6-12-1981. Immediately thereafter the Deputy Director of Public Instructions visited the place and came to know that the appellant had started a high school without the sanction of the Government. In the circumstances, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions addressed a let...
Tag this Judgment!Parshwanatha Stores Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1986
Reported in: [1988]68STC340(Kar)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. This appeal is by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 12th December, 1983 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore (Commissioner) in case No. SMR 27 of 1983-84 made under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). 2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Madhugiri Circle, Madhugiri ('CTO'). For the assessment period from 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981, the assessee filed its return before the CTO disclosing certain turnover. On 17th July, 1981, the CTO rejecting the books of accounts produced by the assessee completed the assessment on the best judgment assessment basis, inter alia, adding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the declared turnover. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the CTO, the assessee filed an appeal in Appeal No. 216 of 1981-82 before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore (DC), who on 23rd Janua...
Tag this Judgment!B. Varadha Rao Vs. Commissioner for Transport
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2135
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1986 is preferred against the order Dated 4-12-1985 made by Doddakalegowda, J in Writ Petition No. 19310 of 1985 dismissing the Writ Petition. This Writ Appeal was directed to be heard along with Writ Appeal Nos. 703 and 707 of 1983 as the questions arising were similar. The principal question in the appeals is whether an order of transfer of a Government Servant made by an authority other than the Government itself, is appealable before Government under Rule 19 of Karnataka,, Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules (C.C.A. Rules for short).2. Writ Appeal Nos. 703 and 707 of 1983 arise out of a common order dated 19-4-1983 made by Rama Jois, J in Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1982 holding, inter-alia, that the Petitioner had a right of appeal to Government under the said Rule 19 against an order of transfer.Writ Appeal No. 703 of 1983 is by the Commissioner of Transport. Writ Appeal No. 707 of 1983 is by the petitioner in the writ petition who considers h...
Tag this Judgment!Bhadregowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2676
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 1, 1986 of the Learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition No. 5729/86.2. The challenge in the Writ Petition was to the notification dated January 16, 1986 of the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District, declaring an area comprising of 13 villages referred to in that notification as a Mandal and specifying village 'Antharagatte' as the headquarter of that Mandal. That notification was issued by the Deputy Commissioner exercising his powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (called shortly 'the Act'). The Learned Single Judge found no reason to disturb the notification.3. We entirely agree with the order of the Learned Judge. The Act provides for the constitution of Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats Nyaya Panchayats and matters connected therewith. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›