Karnataka Court July 1986 Judgments

Rajeeva Alwa Vs. Shankaranarayana

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3121

Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common judgment.2. Under the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act of 1976 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1976) ('the Act') which replaced the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance of 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 7 of 1976) providing for acquisition of contract carriage permits and vehicles from their previous owners, as many as 2615 persons in different categories were absorbed in the Karnataka State Road transport Corporation (KSRTC) on and from 30-1-76 and thereafter. In these cases we are concerned with a limited question of those that are absorbable under the Act, that too only in two categories of Supervision Staff and Managers and Ministerial and Secretarial staff. We have in our Judgment rendered to-day in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. Rajeev Alwa and ors., : ILR1986KAR2794 traced the history of legislation, the v...

K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Rajeev Alwa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR2794

Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common Judgment.2. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) constituted and functioning under the Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950 (Central Act No. 64 of 1950) by itself or in combination of some of its officers like the General Manager, Deputy General Manager (Administration) are the appellants in these appeals directed against the common order made on 30-6-1981 by Rama Jois, J. in Writ Petitions Nos. 16754 of 1980 and connected cases followed by other learned Judges in other Writ Petitions decided on 2-7-1981, 21-7-1981 and 10-8-1981 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the respondents herein except the State of Karnataka who were the petitioners. Any reference made hereafter to the KSRTC must, therefore, be treated as referring to the appellants who were the respondents in the Writ Petitions filed before this Court. The State of K...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.L. Venugopal

Court: Karnataka

Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. The two questions referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court are:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to call for returns under Section 148 in the status of an 'individual' when the assessee had filed the returns in the status of a 'Hindu undivided family ' ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessments made under Section 144 in the status of an 'individual' for non-compliance with notice under Section 148, were not valid in law, and, therefore, by dismissing the Department's appeal and allowing the assessee's cross-objections ?' 2. The assessee had been assessed in the status of an 'individual' up to the assessment year 1970-71. For the first time in 1971-72, the assessee claimed the status of a 'Hindu undivid...

K. Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. These are references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, All these references pertain to the same assessee and the assessment year is 1973-74.2. The Tribunal has referred the following three questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment should be done de novo from the stage of Section 144B proceedings after issuing notices to all the legal representatives ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the assessment was null and void and, consequently, it ought to have annulled the entire assessment ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee after having participated in all the proceedings and after receipt of the draft assessment order could raise objection regarding validity of service of notice a...

Rajasekhar Vs. Siddalingappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR2765

Nesargi, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 182/1964 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City have preferred (his appeal against the decree passed by the said Court on 17-12-1974 dismissing the said suit.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for setting aside the alienations dated 9-12-1957 and 27-12-1958 in regard to item Nos. 1(b), II (a) and (b) of Schedule-A respectively and also the derivative alienations in favour of the other defendants. They also prayed for possession of the suit properties. Nextly they requested for a decree in regard to mesne profits from 9-12-1957 and 27-12-1958 to the date of their getting possession.3. The facts in this suit are almost undisputed. G. Narayan was the son of one B. Giriyappa. G. Narayan died on 20-9-1956. Smt. Gowramma was his 'widow. G. Narayan and Gowramma's issues are plaintiffs 1 to 4, defendant-14 and one Sakku. Sakku died in the year 1960. When G. Narayan died in the year 1956, all these issues were minors. Gowramma died on...

N.N. Nivani Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR432

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these petitions except in Writ Petition No. 6515 of 1984 and W.P. 10332/86, the petitioners apart from seeking issue of a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto directing the 3rd respondent-Sri V. Surya Prakash, State Librarian, to vacate the office of the State Librarian and also to quash the orders of transfers made by him transferring the petitioners.2. In Writ Petition 10332/86, the petitioner has only sought for quashing the order of transfer passed by Sri V. Suryaprakash transferring the petitioner. As far as W.P. 6515/84 is concerned, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :'(i) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent not to appoint the 2nd Respondent as State Librarian (Pay Scale 1320-2250).(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of State Librarian (Pay Scale Rs. 1320-2250) in accordance with the Karnataka State Libr...

G. Pichaimani Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1986(10)ECC148; 1986(2)KarLJ206

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 Art. 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 Tamil Nadu State under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act No. 54 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 they were travelling and attempted to ap...

M.S. Rayta and anr. Etc. Vs. Gowrawwa Channabasappa and anr. Etc.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1987Kant107; ILR1986KAR3211; 1986(2)KarLJ290

Venkatachaliah, J. 1. The two appeals are by the Union of India and its Defence Department. They arise out of and are directed against the common Judgment and separate awards dated 16-1-1986 made in M.V.C. Nos. 39 of 1984 and 115 of 1984 respectively, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Belgaum, awarding compensations in the two actions- one, a fatal accident's action and the other a personal injury action. The claims before the Tribunal arose out of an accident that occurred at 9 a.m. on 28-12-1983 involving appellants' Military Vehicle No. 76-C 13703-A.2. InM.V.C.No.39 of l984 the claimant is Gowrawwa -- the mother of one Chandru Channabasappa Shivapure. In M.V.C. No. 115 of 1984, a certain Dada Peer is the claimant. The said Chandru, aged about 30 years, died and Dada Peer ' injured in the accident that occurred on the National High Way No. 4 near Nittur village between Khanapur and Belgaum. The driver of the said Military vehicle, though not authorised so to do, pi...

Mangalore Metal House Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1986]63STC482(Kar)

ORDERM. Rama Jois, J.1. In these writ petitions presented by Mangalore Metal House, Mangalore. the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether section 5(4) read with item 2 of the IV Schedule read with explanation-II thereto of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the Act' for short) is violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution of India ?' 2. The question is raised on the basis of the following facts and circumstances. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act. He is dealer various items of iron and steel. In particular he is a dealer in M.S. rounds. The petitioner purchases M.S. rounds locally as well as in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. In respect of sale turnover of M.S. rounds, the provision, levying tax applicable, in view of explanation incorporated at the Fourth Schedule, is to the following effect : (i) For the period from 1st October, 1957, to 31st March, 1978, though the tax on the first sale turnover of M.S. rounds is four per cent.,...

Narayan Hanamanth Murali Vs. Land Tribunal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR4059; 1986(2)KarLJ257

Rama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal is presented against the order of the Learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition filed by respondent-4 against the order of the Land Tribunal, Basavana Bagewadi, and remitting the matter to the Land Tribunal.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follow: Respondent No. 4 made an application before the Land Tribunal, Basavan Bagewadi, claiming occupancy rights in respect of 11 acres and 37 guntas of land in Sy. No. 1257/2 of Basavana Bagewadi. The application was resisted by the appellant on the ground that an exemption has been granted in respect of lands leased by persons who were members of the Armed Forces under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and, therefore, the application of respondent-No. 4 could not be granted as he was, under the law, entitled to recover possession for self-cultivation after retirement from the Army. The Land Tribunal accepted the plea of the app...