Karnataka Court December 1987 Judgments
Akhila Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR481; 1987(3)KarLJ378
ORDERRama Jois, J.In all these Writ Petitions, presented by the publishers of certain magazines questioning the legality of the seizure of all the copies of certain issues of the magazines the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether a Police Officer has the power to seize all the copies of an issue of a magazine printed and published and/ or kept for sale in the Book stalls on the ground that an offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC' for short) is suspected to have been committed through writings, articles and/or pictures published in the said issue of magazine?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these:(i) In W.P.10650/86 :- This Writ Petition is by Akhila Publishers Pvt. Limited, Bangalore. They are the publishers of a weekly film magazine entitled 'Chitravihari'and a monthly magazine entitled 'Surathi'. On 6-6-1986 the Upparpet Police in the City of Bangalore seized 20,000 copies of 'Surathi' magazine comprising of different monthl...
Tag this Judgment!Maliappa Basappa Thotad Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1065
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition is preferred against the acquisition proceedings under Notification No. LAQ.II.HS.CR-59/82-83 dated 22-3-1983 vide Annexure-A and the Notification of even number dated 12-10-1983 vide Annexure-B and also notice dated nil vide Annexure-C praying for quashing of the same as illegal.2. The petitioners are the owners of land bearing Sy.No. 243/1 measuring an extent of 8 acres 13 guntas situated at Halageri Village, Ranebennur Taluk, Dharwar District. The petitioners are brothers and jointly own the said land and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1979, the land to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas belonging to the petitioners in the very same survey number was acquired for the purpose of construction of office building and staff quarters of the Karnataka Electricity Board, Halageri under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Again the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar, who is respondent-1 in this Writ Petition, caused the i...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ramakrishna Kamath Vs. Aithappa Maistry
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1987
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1901; 1989(2)KarLJ56
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 31-3-1977 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mangalore, South Kanara, in R.A.No. 62/1976 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 12-7-1976 passed by the learned I Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, in O.S.No. 599/1974. Thus, the appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants.2. In this Judgment, the appellant and the respondents will be referred to as the 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' respectively.3. The suit was filed on 24-9-1974 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, representatives and assigns from in any way interfering with or preventing the flow of water from the plaintiff's property to the defendant's property and its outlets through the eastern compound wall of the defendant's property to the poramboke Municipal channel by the side of Kavoor cross road.4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following is...
Tag this Judgment!G.W. Elias Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3012; (1989)ILLJ284Kant
ORDER1. Order dated 30th August 1976 (Annexure-A) under which petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service is questioned mainly on two grounds, namely : (i) conclusion reached on uncommunicated confidential reports was illegal and void, and (ii) vitiated by malafides. 2. Petitioner was working as Chief Supervisor from 9th May 1958 to 31st August 1976 in Assembly and Overhaul Shop Section in the establishment of the first respondent and later assigned to Stores Department from 21st April 1976 to 31st August 1976. Respondents contended that an order made in public interest cannot be interfered with, unless it was made for collateral purpose or based on irrelevant consideration, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Though there was very little controversy on facts, considerable arguments were addressed at the Bar citing various decisions of the Supreme Court which prima facie looked irreconciable. 4. Sri K. Subbarao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, r...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chandrashekar Hegde Vs. Bangalore City Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR356
ORDERBopanna, J.Issue rule in W.P.No. 8892 of 1987.1. These two Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order since certain common questions arise for consideration in these petitions under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CITB Act'), the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA' Act), the Allotment of Sites Rules framed under the CITB Act and the Allotment of Sites Rules, 1982 framed under the B.D.A. Act.2. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions purchased certain sites which had been allotted to them earlier by the City Improvement Trust Board Bangalore Development Authority and in terms of the orders of allotment and the stipulations imposed in the agreements that they had entered into with the respective authority they have put up residential houses in those sites and have been residing either as owners of those premises in question or rented out tenants.3. In W.P.No. 8892/87 t...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaram Bapuchand Shaha and Co. Vs. Hirachand Sakharam Mehata and Co
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1962; 1987(3)KarLJ571
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This C.R.P. is preferred by the plaintiffs against the finding recorded on 30-10-1987 by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi, in O.S. No. 18 of 1985 on Issue No. 1 in the negative. Issue No. 1 reads thus:Whether the Court fee paid is proper?2. The trial Court has held that the Court fee paid is not proper and the plaintiffs have to pay Court fee in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Accordingly, the trial Court has directed the petitioners to pay a deficit Court fee of Rs. 3,561/-.3. The plaintiffs-petitioners have sought for the following reliefs :'(A) Declaring that the decree passed in O.S. No. 125/ 81 on 17-2-1982 in favour of the defendant-1 against the plaintiff in this Court is illegal, null and void, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff;(B) Consequently restraining the defendant-1 and persons on its behalf by perpetual ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. M. Sundara Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas377(Kar)
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. The respondent, Sundara Shetty, had filed O.S. No. 104 of 1968 before the court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, against one Ronald Lobo and B.l. Ignato for the amounts due to him on a hire purchase agreement and obtained an attachment before judgment of the immovable properties of B.L. Ignato. The suit came to be decreed on December 16, 1968, and on the execution petition filed by the plaintiff in Execution Case No. 44 of 1970 before the same court, the attached property wa sold in court auction and the plaintiff-respondent himself purchased the same in court sale and the sale was confirmed on april 17, 1971. He was even delivered possession of the property. The defendant present appellant-bank had encumbrance over the property by way of mortgage in its favour dated March 28, 1967, and the sale in favour of the plaintiff was subject to this mortgage. The plaintiff was not aware of any other encumbrance over this property. 2. After he took possession of the property s...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sampangirama Raju, Vs. Vth Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Kar)58; [1988]173ITR609(KAR); [1988]173ITR609(Karn)
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners who are assessees under the Income-tax Act have challenged the constitutional validity of section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. Penalty is leviable under the said proviso for any failure to pay the tax or any part of it along with the return furnished under section 139 or under section 148 of the Act. 3. The petitioners have relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO : [1973]90ITR116(Mad) , in which the said provisions were struck down by the Madras High Court, being violative of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 4. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the Department that several High Courts have taken a contrary view and relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kashiram v. ITO : [1977]107ITR825(AP) ; CIT v. Vrajlal Manlilal & Co. : [1981]127ITR512(MP) ; Seva Ram v. ITO and Gunny Exporters (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1976] TLR 603 (Cal). 5. To recapitulate, the reasons g...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Susheela and anr. Vs. the Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant178
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions presented by the Petitioners who are the owners of residential buildings constructed on revenue lands situate within the area of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore without securing permission for conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purpose and without licence from the Corporation, the following question of law arises for consideration :- 'Whether Regn. 2(f) of the Electricity Supply Regulations made by the Karnataka Electricity Board, which provides that the Board may require an applicant seeking supply of electric energy to produce a certificate from the concerned local authority to the effect that the construction is an authorised one as a condition for supply of electric energy, is invalid ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : Each of the petitioner's in this batch of petitions has constructed a residential building on a revenue site without there being any permission for conversion of the land for non-agr...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Chinagi Vs. Registering Authority and Regional Transport Officer, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant232; ILR1988KAR59; 1988(1)KarLJ46
Prem Chand Jain, C.J. 1. This order of ours would dispose of both the appeals (Writ Appeals Nos. 2174 and 2175 of 1984), as the same arise out of a single judgment of the learned single Judge dated 6th of August 1984 by which Writ Petitions Nos. 10399 and 10400 of 1984 were dismissed.2. The appellant is a tourist operator, operating his services throughout the territory: of India. He has got regular contracts from Madhya Pradesh Office for conducting tours in South India, particularly in the State of Karnataka. For this purpose he is obtaining special permits specifying the, names of the places for conducting tours.3. It is averred in the petition that vehicle No. MBE 2642 is one of the vehicles under the ownership of the appellant registered as an omni-bus before the R.T.O., Indore. The said vehicle was contin6lously engaged by touring parties for tours of various places and pilgrimage centres in Karnataka. On 10th of December, 1983 and 19th of March, 1984 the vehicle was checked by t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »