Karnataka Court June 1986 Judgments
Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Chandrasekhar Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2827
Venkatachaliah, J.1. M.F.A. 1178/85 is by the L.A.O. Lingasugur and M.F.A. 1548/85 is by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short), and both arise out and are directed against the Award and Decree dated 15-12-1984 made in LAC 53/82 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Raichur, enhancing in proceedings and reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, compensation in respect of 3 acres and 33 1/3 guntas of land in S. No. 770A situate in Sindhnoor town in Raichur District, acquired for purposes of construction of a Bus-Station for the 'KSRTC' pursuant to the preliminary notification published in the Gazette dated 10-3-1977.2. The LAO in his Award, (Ext. D-4), determined the market-value of the acquired land at 30Ps. per Sq. ft. and awarded compensation accordingly. The Court-below has fixed the market-value at Re. 1-50Ps. or Rs. 65,340/- per acre.The claimant--land - owner has filed cross-objections seeking further enhancement of the compensation...
Tag this Judgment!Transport Corporation of India (P.) Limited and anr. Vs. Oriental Fire ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas208(Kar)
Nesargi, J.1. Defendant No. 2 in O.S. No. 311 of 1972 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City, is the first appellant. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of Rs.49,263.50 being the value of 3789.5 kgs. of copper coils at Rs.13 per kg., interest of Rs.5,051,.44 and Rs.446 as the survey fees and expenses. 2. The undisputed facts are that plaintiff No. 2 had sent copper scrap to the Indian Cable Company, Calcutta for being melted and converted into copper coils. The Indian Copper Company, Calcutta, converted the copper scrap into 115 copper weighing 11,744.500 kgs. It consigned the said copper coils to defendant No. 1 for being transported from Tatanagar to Bangalore, the consignee being plaintiff No. 2. On January 13, 1971, defendant No. 1 issued lorry receipts bearing Nos. B-508 to B-513. Defendant 1 in turn entrusted the same to defendant No. 2 for actual transport from Tatanager to Bangalore and for delivery to plaintiff No. 2 at ...
Tag this Judgment!Transport Corporation of India (P) Ltd. Vs. Oriental Fire and General ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC140
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. Defendant-2 in O.S. No. Ml of 1972 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore city, is the first appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 49,263-50 ps. being the value of 3789.5 kgs. of copper coils at Rs. 13/- per kg., interest of Rs. 5,051-44 ps. and Rs. 446/- as the survey fees aad expenses.2. The undisputed facts are that plaintiff-2 had sent copper scrap to the Indian Cable Company, Calcutta for being melted and converted into copper coils. The Indian Copper Company, Calcutta, converted copper scrap into 115 copper coils weighing 11,744-500 kgs. It consigned the said copper coils to defendant-1 for being transported from Tatanagar to Bangalore, the consignee being plaintiff-2. On 13-1-1971 defendant-1 issued lorry receipts bearing Nos B 508 to B-513. Defendant-1 in turn entrusted the same to defendant-2 for actual transport from Tatanagar to Bangalore and for delivery to plaintiff-2 at Bangalore. Delivery was to...
Tag this Judgment!Shrenikraj and ors. Vs. Labour Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1986
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas334(Kar); ILR1986KAR2623; 1986(2)KarLJ309
Patil, J. 1. On a complaint made by the Labour Officer, Raichur Sub-Divisions, Raichur, alleging contravention of rules 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) of the Payment of Bonus Rules, 1975, and consequent to the commission of an offence punishable under section 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the JMFC., Raichur, having issued process against the petitioners, the petitioners appearing before the magistrate, made an application on February 17, 1981, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the firm had not been made a party. The magistrate having dismissed that application, they approached the Sessions Judge in Cr. R.P. No. 30 of 1981 and the Sessions Judge having dismissed the revision by his order dated September 14, 1984, they have approached this court invoking the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Mr. Raikote, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, argued that the firm being the employer under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Pichaimani Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(26)ELT24(Kar); ILR1987KAR1069
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common and are inter-connected we propose to dispose them by a common order. 2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is common has challenged the detention orders made by Government of Karnataka on 3-3-1986 against Sriyuths P. Selvaraj and K. Ganesh of Tamilnadu State under the Conservation and Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act No. 45 of 1974) ('the Act'). 3. On 10-8-1985 the detenus were travelling in Bombay-Madras Mail (Train No. 9) via Wadi Railway Station of Gulbarga District. When the said train reached and halted at Wadi Railway Station platform, the authorised officers of the Customs and Central Excise Department of Government of India (C & B Officers) on the reasonable belief that the detenus were carrying smuggled gold of foreign origin, entered Railway Bogie No. 9337 in which were travelling and attempted to app...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2620; 1986(2)KarLJ466
ORDERPatil, J.1. This petition by the accused in C.C.No. 22/1984, arising out of Crime No. 323/83 of Ulsoor Police Station, on the fib of the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, is directed against the order dated 21-4-1984, whereby the Investigating Officer has been permitted to continue the investigation beyond six months.2. On the complaint of one S. Viswanath, residing at No. 68, 'G' No. 10th Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore, the Police registered a case in Crime No. 323/83, for the offence under Section 420 IPC and submitted F.I.R. to the Sessions Judge. Thereafter, on 29-8-1983, the accused was arrested and sent to the Magistrate for remand, He was released on bail. The offence being one triable as a summons case, the investigation had to be completed within six months. The investigation having not been completed before an order stopping futher investigation could be made as provided under Sub-section (5) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., on the application made by the Investig...
Tag this Judgment!Muniappa Vs. Tahsildar and Returning Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2698
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. Several contentions were urged in this appeal, but we do not want to consider all of them. The one and the only contention which according to us deserves consideration is as to the scope or inter-action of Explanations 1 and 2 to the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. They read :'1. A non-borrower member means a member who till 30 days before the date on which election is held has not borrowed any money from the Bank at any time.2. A borrower member means, a member who has borrowed any loan from the Bank at any time and includes a member who has borrowed and repaid.'Explanation 1 deals with a non-borrower. Explanation 2 deals with a borrower. Each category of persons has a separate representation in the Board of Directors of the society. One shall not trespass the realm of others.2. Learned Single Judge after going into the merits of the matter has held that the appellant has not borrowed any money from the ban...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Abbaiah Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2901; 1986(2)KarLJ186
Rama Jois, J.1. These two Writ Appeals are presented against the same order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition presented by the third respondent in W.A. No. 369 of 1985 who is respondent No. 1 in W. A. No. 2587 of 1985, setting aside the order of the State Government cancelling the No Objection Certificate ('NOC' for short) for construction of a touring cinema building on a site situated in the Koramangala extension of the City of Bangalore. W.A.No. 369 of 1985 is by persons who were objectors to the grant and W. A. No. 2587 of 1985 is by the State.2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties in Writ Appeal No. 369 of 1985.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : Respondent No. 3 made an application before the District Magistrate, Bangalore, under Rule 90 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules ('the Rules' for short) framed under the provisions of The Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short); for the grant of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Satish Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR457(KAR); [1986]162ITR457(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure Rs. 10.000 as marriage expenses is a capital charge on bequeathed properties and can be allowed as a deduction if the same has been incurred in the relevant previous year irrespective of deduction provided under section 24(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessment year is 1972-73. The assessee inherited a house property subject to certain conditions under a will dated December 30, 1966, left by his father. Thereunder, the assessee was liable to pay Rs. 30 per month to his mother towards maintenance. He was also liable to pay Rs. 10,000 to each of his unmarried sisters at the time of their marriage. He performed the marriage of his sister during the relevant year and claimed deduction of t...
Tag this Judgment!JainuddIn NizamuddIn Munshi Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2055
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. The learned Single Judge being of the opinion that an important question, viz., the ambit and scope of Section 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Karnataka Act No. 19/86) (hereinafter called 'the Amendment Act') falls for consideration in these petitions, has referred the same to a Division Bench for disposal.2. In all these petitions, the challenge is to the orders made by the Land Tribunals, under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Till the coining into force of the Amendment Act such orders had been made final as provided under Sub-section (6) of Section 48A of the Act. Neither an appeal nor a revision nor even a review on merits was provided. The parties aggrieved by the orders of Land Tribunals had only to take recourse to the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, these petitions bad been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.3. For the first time by introducing ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »