Karnataka Court August 1986 Judgments

Neelasekhara Raju Vs. Returning Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR224

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner-Neelasekhara Raju, has questioned the legality and competence of the 2nd respondent-State of Karnataka to exercise its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in cancelling the election scheduled for the 4th Division of Harihar Town Municipality as per Notification No. DPAR 350 EEM 83 dated 18th December, 1985, (Annexure H) as well as the legality of the consequential announcement made by the Assistant Returning Officer of. Town Municipal Council, Harihar, as per Annexure-G dated 20-12-1985. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for quashing the impugned notification and the consequent announcement and for a direction that election be held in accordance with the calendar of events issued earlier as per Annexure-E. There is a further prayer that one other calendar of events issued in March, 198C at Annexure-J also should be quashed as a cons...

State of Karnataka Vs. Yaseen

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3310

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Learned Single Judge dated August 31, 1981 made in Writ Petition No. 19631 of 1980.2. The respondent was a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to a Police Station in the City of Bangalore. He was in occupation of an official quarters for residential purposes. He was promoted as Inspector and transferred to C.O.D. (Corps of Detectives) Bangalore. Upon transfer he did not vacate the quarters under his occupation. Appellants therefore levied penal rent or penal licence fee under Rule 26 of the K.C.S. Rs.The respondent challenged the validity of the levy of penal rent before this Court contending inter alia, that it was illegal and un-authorised. The Learned Single Judge has accepted the plea of the respondent on two grounds ; Firstly, it was held that the authorities before levying penal rent must form an opinion that the officer is not entitled to allotment of official quarters in the post to which he is transferred. ...

Nagella Venkataramana Reddy Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRama Jois. J.1. In this Writ Petition, in which the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Hospet Sub-Division, Hospet, by which he declared the sale of certain agricultural lands in favour of the petitioner as invalid in view of Section 4 or the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (The Act' for short), which order has been confirmed in appeal by the Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue). Bellary District, the following important question of law, which also arises in large number of similar cases, arise for consideration :'Whether under the provisions of the Act any power is conferred on the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to make an assessment of the cost of improvements claimed to have been effected by the purchaser on the land, the sale of which 15 declared invalid by Section 4 of the Act, and to secure the payment of the cost of improvements effected ...

K.M. Vishnudas Prabhu, Vs. First Wealth-tax Officer and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Kar)285; [1987]166ITR706(KAR); [1987]166ITR706(Karn)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common, I propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. A Hindu undivided family consisting of Sri K. M. Ramdas Prabhu and Sri K. M. Shankar Prabhu as its coparceners, inter alia, owns and immovable property in the city of Mangalore and the same had been taken on lease by a partnership firm called K. M. Ananda Prabhu and sons of Mangalore (firm) consisting of three partners which had also constructed a building thereon. 3. For the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80 relevant to the valuation dates of December 31, 1976, December 31, 1977, and December 31, 1978, respectively, the Hindu undivided family and the three partners of the firm filed their returns under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957) ('the Act'), before the First Wealth-tax Officer, Mangalore, disclosing their net wealth in the aforesaid property. On February 10, 1979, the Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessments on the H...

Ramakrishnappa Vs. Presiding Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR378

ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. The petitioner, an ex-employee of M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Limited, has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, granting the application made by the second respondent to the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ('the Act' for short).2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under : The petitioner and two others were employees of the second respondent-industry. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them by the charge-sheet dated 30-11-1979 (Annexure-C). An Inquiry Committee consisting of three persons was appointed. The Committee held an inquiry against the petitioner and three other persons. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Thereafter, by an order dated 8th June, 1982 (Annexure-H), the petitioner was dismissed from service. As disputes, which attracted the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, we...

Puttavva Kom Mallappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR737; 1987(1)KarLJ275

ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this writ petition, arising under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (the Act' for short), the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether the Tahsildar, holding an enquiry under Section 47 read with Section 48B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (the Act for short) for ascertaining the value of a well or other structures of permanent nature constructed by the landlord, on a land in respect of which occupancy right is granted in favour of an individual under Section 48-A of the Act, is under a duty to hold an enquiry after due notice to the parties and recording evidence regarding the value of the well or other structures ?2. The facts and circumstances of the case, in which the above question arises for consideration, are as follow: The petitioner was a tenant lawfully cultivating 7 acres of land together with 1 acre 2 guntas of pot Kharab, in Chikerur village in Hirekerur taluka, Dharwad District. On 16-8-1974 he filed an ap...

President-roshan Mosque Vs. Sharfunnissa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3243; 1987(1)KarLJ40

ORDERKulkarni, J.1. Both the Advocates submitted that the revision itself may be finally heard on merits. Accordingly arguments on the final merits of the revision are heard and the revision is disposed of finally.2. This is a revision by judgment-debtor-2 against the order dated 4th August, 1986, passed by the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in Execution case No. 76 of 1985 allowing LA. No. 2.3. The respondent-decree holder Smt. Sharfunnissa had filed a suit in O.S.No. 1909/83 against the present revision petitioner (defendant-2 in the suit) and another Amanulla Khan (defendant-1 in the said suit) for permanent injunction alleging that she was in possession of the property and that the defendants were interfering with her possession of the property. The said suit was decreed exparte.4. According to the decree holder, defendants-1 and 2 on 14-10-1985 took forcible possession of the property out of Court. Thereafter she filed the present execution for delivery of the pos...

Escorts Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Esic

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3595

Venkatachaliah, J.1. In this appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, ('Act') Escorts Ltd., the appellant, assails the order dated 23-9-1985 made in E.S.I, Application No. 13 of 1984 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court, Bangalore, ('ESI Court' for short).Appellant initiated the proceedings before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the 'Act' questioning the determination made under Section 45A of the 'Act' demanding E.S.I. contributions from the appellant as 'Principal-employer' in respect of certain workmen employed by appellant's contractors engaged for the construction of appellant's factory-buildings.2. The material facts are these :Appellant has a factory at Yelahanka engaged in the manufacture of 'Pistons'. The said project was taken-up pursuant to a project report prepared in or about the year 1974. The execution of the civil works of the factory buildings and of their sanitary and electrical installations was entrusted to three separate Co...

Chamundi Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1987]166ITR683(KAR); [1987]166ITR683(Karn)

K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. These references are either under section 256(1) or 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They raise common questions of law and fact and they are, therefore, disposed of by this order. 2. The common question which has been referred by the Tribunal runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the assessee was not assessable under the head 'Business'?' 4. I. T. R. C. Nos. 194 and 195 of 1981 relate to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1974-75, respectively. I. T. R. C. Nos. 214 and 215 of 1979 relate to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively. 5. The fats in brief are : 6. The assessee is a private limited company having been incorporated on January 1, 1971. On December 11, 1970, it has entered into an agreement for sale with the late Jayachamaraja Wadeyar of Mysore in regard to the property called 'Bangalore Palace' and obtained possession of the ...

R. Gopal Vs. Bangalore City Corporation

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3394; 1987(2)KarLJ430

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore-1st respondent herein for grant of a licence in accordance with the requirement of Section 343 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to run a non-vegetarian restaurant (in 42nd Division) on Shivagangamutt Road at premises No. 261/1, 1st Cross, Chamarajapet IIIrd Main Road. That application came to be rejected on the ground that consent letter from the immediate neighbours had not been produced. That order was passed on 15-1-1986. The application was made on 27-12-1985. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner to the Standing Committee - Public Health, of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Committee). That Standing Committee at its meeting held on 17-4-1986 allowed the appeal taking into consideration that the objector was living at a considerable distance from...