Karnataka Court September 1986 Judgments

Rudramma Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR211

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of by the following order after hearing Counsel for parties.Petitioner Rudramma made an application to the respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4. as a consequence of which, the Assistant Revenue Officer, Gandhinagar Range, Corporation of the City of Bangalore by his endorsement dated 14-11-1980 informed the petitioner that the khatha of property No. 265, Subedar Chatram Road had been transferred to her name in the registers of the Corporation Office.2. Thereafter, the Convenor of Sri Dattatreyaswamy Temple Trust, appears to have made a representation to the Commissioner of the Corporation, stating that the property is a Muzrai properly and therefore, the change of katha obtained by the petitioner Rudramma was illegal and by misrepresentation; that the property of the Goduraya Mutt which bears No. 266 was thus misappropriated by persons having vested interest in collusion with Mu...

Srinivasaiah Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. An educational institution, known as 'Maharani's Arts College for Women' situate in Mysore is exclusively meant for educating girls. Contention of petitioner is that he was second Senior-most Reader in the College at the relevant point of time and Note-4 of the Karnataka Education Department (Collegiate Education Department)(Recruitment) Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') which has denied opportunity of becoming of Principal of that College is ultra vires and illegal.2. Notes 3 and 4 of the Rules read thus :'Note 3 : The Senior most Professor or Assistant Professor as the case may be will be the Principal of the College.Note 4 ; Only women shall be eligible for appointment as Principals of Women's Colleges'.As the post of Principal of Maharani's College is required to be filled up exclusively by Women, petitioner has challenged its constitutional validity, inter alia, contending that it is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 1...

G.V. Hanamshet Vs. Dada Chintamani Patravali and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1987Kant102; ILR1986KAR3525

ORDER1. This, is a revision by the applicant in I.A. 14 against the order dated 27-8-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Insolvency Petition 2 of 1962, dismissing the same.2. I.A. 14 has been filed by the revision petitioner, alleging that the official receiver had 'sold the three properties bearing :(I) CTS. No. 41/A situate in Somwar Peth, Tilakwadi, Belgaum, (2) CTS. No. 4589/13 of Shetti Galli, and (3) CTS. No. 4538 of Shetti Galli, Belgaum. The said three properties belonged to the insolvents. He alleged that there was no proper publication regarding the auction sale, held by the official receiver. As per the report given by the official receiver, she had published the notice regarding the auction sale in the newspaper called Lokadarshana, which has no wide publicity in the area of Belgaum City. The official receiver and the insolvents have colluded and the properties have been sold for highly inadequate price. CTS. No. 41/A measuring 4 guntas, where a building is construc...

Ulhas Nature Cure Centre, Bangalore and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR457

ORDER1. W.P. 14274/1986 : Petitioner is a registered partnership firm; it is asserted that it is running a Nature Cure Clinic at Yamunabai Road, Madhavnagar, Bangalore. It is said that it is registered under the Companies Act and is assessed for professional tax. Its function, as claimed in the petition, is to solve health problems by nature cure without drug or surgery. It has the facility of steam bath, massaging and yogas. Petitioner's grievance is as follows : '...... The respondents are sending Policemen regularly to the institute of the petitioner and the posting of the Policemen at the institute of the petitioner is preventing the registered patients of the petitioner from taking treatment. By illegal acts and surveillance of the respondents and their officers, the business of the petitioner is affected very much and if the same is continued by the respondents, the petitioner will be forced to close down the business. The acts of the respondents violate the guaranteed fundamenta...

Ramegowda Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR1358

ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of wet land S.No. 7/1 ; he claims to be a farmer, with two sons and three daughters. He asserts that in his land there are two mango trees, sixteen fruit bearing coconut trees ; tamarind and other trees. Obviously nothing can be more dearer to him than the land, which is the source of his survival.2. On 6-2-1976, the land was notified for acquisition under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act. Petitioner, rightly and justly objected as his life, belt was being cut off. On 29-3-1976, final notification was issued. Since the petitioner had not been heared, he questioned the same in W.P. 5890 of 1977. W.P. was allowed on 23-6-1980, after quashing the final notification, directions were issued to proceed in accordance with law. The relief, though temporary, was a postponement of the evil day. Respondents, who were in authority and had force mightier than the petitioner, once again issued a final notification ; that ...

Ravi and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3284

Patil, J.1. This is a Miscellaneous Application made under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to make appropriate order to allow set off the period of detention against the term of imprisonment imposed while confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. 2. The applicant Mukundam, Convict No. 3039, undergoing life imprisonment in Central Prison at Trivendrum, and another Ravi alias Ravindran were tried together by Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, on the charge of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and found guilty, convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively thereon with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal filed by them came to be dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentences passed on them by this Court on 17/18th July, 1978. There being no direction to set off the period of detention a...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Kar)205; [1987]167ITR22(KAR); [1987]167ITR22(Karn); 1987(1)KarLJ371

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the repenting of the assessment was not in order ?' he current VERIFY setting. The assessee is an individual. The assessment years is 1973-74. The original assessment had been completed by the Income-tax Officer under section 143(1) of the Act on the income declared at Rs. 21,640. Subsequently, on the basis of the information that the purchaser of the lorry belonging to the assessee had disclosed the purchase value at Rs. 45,000 to obtain a loan from the bank, the Income-tax Officer has reopened the assessment by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the assessee's contention and upheld the reopening of the assessment. But the Tribunal held to the contrary. The Tribunal was of the ...

M.L.G. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1987]167ITR11(KAR); [1987]167ITR11(Karn); 1987(1)KarLJ376

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following question has been referred by Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the interest paid to the partners while computing the capital gains ?'2. The assessment year is 1971-72. The assessee which is an unregistered firm had purchased a piece of land on September 2, 1964, with an intention to construct a theatre thereon. But that proposal was given up as there was no hope of getting a licence. But the levelling work was carried out for improving the property, although no construction took place. After a lapse of nearly six years, the land was sold to M/s. East West Hotels Ltd., under a registered sale deed dated June 30, 1970, for Rs. 7,74,250. 3. The assessee offered for assessment as capital gains a sum of Rs. 2,03,910 by deducting from the sale price, the original cost of the land which was Rs. 2,00,000 and co...

Siddappa Alias Siddanna Vs. Executive Engineer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR953

ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. At the hearing, I have heard Mr. N.K. Patil who appears for the applicants in I.A.No. I. I.A.I. is allowed and permission is granted to implead the applicants as respondents.2. The petitioners are the owners of survey No. III/A and survey No. 109/B situate at Hatti, Shindhanoor Taluk, Raichur District. They are challenging the validity of Annexure-A, the Notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act, 1965 ('Act' for short) and Annexure-B, the Notification issued under Section 15(2) of the said Act.3. The main ground urged by the petitioners is that, the Notification Annexure-B, mentions the name of Basappa s/o Siddappa, who it is stated had expired in 1981 and the Notification is issued on 30-5-1985. It is also asserted by the petitioners that they were not aware of the publication of the Notification and the acquisition proceedings. Both the petitioners contend that they had not been issued with any notice of acquisition.4. In appreci...

Cheluvaraj Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3441; 1987(1)KarLJ247

ORDERDesai, J.1. The Petitioner was the accused in C.C.No. 70/1983 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore. He was tried for contravention of clause (3) of the Karnataka Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1969 (for short the 'Order') for carrying on business in kerosene as a dealer without a licence and for contravention of the Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order 1970, for selling kerosene at a higher price than the price fixed under the said order punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As the accused denied the commission of the said offences, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Exs. D1, D1(a) and D1 (b) were got marked on behalf of the accused. No evidence was adduced in his defence by the accused. The learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for contravention of the Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1970. He however, held the accused guilty of contravention of clause (3) of the o...