Karnataka Court March 1987 Judgments
State of Karnataka Vs. Bohra Dalichand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1208; 1987(1)KarLJ429
Nesargi, J.1. These appeals by the State arise out of the common judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur on 6-2-86 in C.C. Nos. 209/85, 208/85, 211/85, 213/85, 212/85, 214/85, 215/85 and 30/86 respectively.2. The respondent in Crl. Appeal Nos. 428 and 438 of 1986 is one and the same, Sri. Bohra Dalichand. The undisputed fact is he was the owner in possession of goods vehicle No. MYR 5087. Quarterly tax amounting to Rs. 1430/- for each quarter was liable to be paid in respect of the said vehicle. He did not pay the quarterly tax for the period from 1-5-1985 to 31-7-1985 (CC 208/85) on 15-5-85 but paid the same on 31-7-1985. In regard to the period from 1-8-1985 to 31-10-1985 he did not pay the quarterly tax on or before 15-8-1985 but paid the same on 31-84985 (C.C. 209/85).3. The prosecution contended that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) He pleaded g...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Bhaskar Auto Financier
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1212; 1987(1)KarLJ369
Nesargi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-2-86 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur in C.C. 51/86.2. The respondent was owner in possession of the lorry bearing No. MYY 5230, the quarterly tax of which was Rs. 1885/-. He failed to pay the tax for the period from 1-8-84 to 31-10-85 and also for the period from 1-11-1984 to 31-10-85 on the dates due. He paid the tax for the said quarters on 17-1-1986. He was prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and he pleaded guilty.3. The Trial Court accepted the plea and convicted him. It sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1885/- which is equal to tax payable for one quarter and directed that the same be set-off in the tax amount already paid by him.4. The State has prayed for enhancement of the sentence and also for setting aside the direction for setting off the amount of fine in the tax already paid.5. The amount of quarte...
Tag this Judgment!C.N. Ramaswamy Vs. Town Municipal Council, Chickmagalur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant168; 1987(1)KarLJ356
ORDER1. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to-forbear from nominating any member to the Planning Authority, Chickmagalur and not to enforce the period of one year set out in the Resolution dt. 29-9-83 (Annexure-B) as the same is ultra virus the powers of the Municipal Council.2. The petitioner is a Municipal Councilor of Town Municipal Council, Chickmagalur. For Chickmagalur Town, there is a Planning Authority constituted -under S. 4C of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By a letter dt. 15-9-1983,(Annexure-A), the Planning Authority, Chickmagalur, requested the Municipal Council to send its representative to the Planning Authority. The Municipal Council met on 29-9-1983 and resolved to nominate, the petitioner as its representative to the Planning Authority for a period of one year from 29-9-83 as per Annexure-B. According t...
Tag this Judgment!Narashalli Kempanna and ors. Vs. Narasappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant50; ILR1988KAR179
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dt. 3-111976 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Kolar, in R.A. No. 103/1972 confirming the decree dt. 24-6-1972 passed by the Munsiff, Chintamani in O.S. No. 7/1971. Thus the plaintiff is the appellant and the respondents are the defendants. The parties in this judgment will be referred to with reference to the position they occupied in the trial Court.2. The suit properties are the agricultural lands bearing S. No. 195/ 1, measuring 2 acres 15 guntas and S. No. 109/3, measuring 2 acres 4 guntas, situated in Kothanur village, Siddlaghatta Taluk, Kolar District.3. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit properties from the first defendant under a registered sale deed dt. 12-1-1950. He has filed the present suit for the following reliefs.(a) To declare that he is the owner of one-sixth share in the suit schedule properties.(b) For partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds into six shares and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Deputy Commissioner Vs. Narayanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1398
Rama Jois, J.1. In these appeals the following important questions of law arise for consideration :(1) Whether the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District has the power to grant permission for conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in respect of lands falling within the area covered by the Outline Development Plan or Comprehensive Development Plan for the City of Bangalore prepared and published under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('the Planning Act' for short) and(2) Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal could have issued direction to the Deputy Commissioner to grant the conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 as sought for by the respondents in these appeals.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow:Respondent-1 M. Narayanappa, filed an application for grant of permission to divert land measuring 1.11 acres in Survey No. 159/1 and 1.21 ...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Agencies Vs. Seethalakshmi Hall Flour Mills
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1349
Rama Jois, J.1. In this second appeal, referred to a Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the following question of law arises for consideration :Whether the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, who has also been appointed as a Judge of the City Civil Court, had the jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal preferred against the order of the erstwhile Second Munsiff. Bangalore ?2. The above question arises in view of the following facts: A City Civil Court was established for the City of Bangalore under the provisions of the Bangalore City Civil Courts Ordinance, 1979, with effect from 16-11-1979. The Ordinance was replaced by the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act, 1979 (in short 'the Act of 1979'). Section 3 of the Act of 1979 provides that as from the appointed date there shall be a City Civil Court for the City of Bangalore. With effect from the date of establishment of the City Civil Court, the District Courts, the Courts of the Civil Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkappa Vs. Doddappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1920; 1987(1)KarLJ299
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The Registry has raised an objection that as the R.S.A. in question is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of remand passed under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC it is not maintainable. However, learned Counsel for the appellants maintains that the order of remand determines one of the issues involved in the suit finally and it remands only in respect of an issue relating to a will; therefore, in so far it finally decides the issue it becomes a decree; hence, the R.S.A. filed under Section 100 of the CPC is maintainable.2. If only the definition of the word 'decree' would not have excluded the order of remand from its purview probably there would not have been any difficulty in accepting this contention. The definition of the expression 'decree' specifically excludes 'any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order.' The order of remand is made either under Rule 23 or Rule 23A of Order 41 of the CPC as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambadas and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1481; 1987(1)KarLJ341
ORDER1. These petitions are directed against the common order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Bidar under S. 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in case No. REV/MAG/CR/-20/83-84, on his file. 2. Petitioners Ambadas alias Ramesh and Shivakumar in Cr.P. No. 382 and 781 of 1984, respectively, are said to be students. On a report made by the Circle Inspector of Police, Bhalki, that the petitioners had been continuously indulging in offences involving force and violence punishable under chapters XI, XVI, XVII of the Penal Code and a number of cases had been registered against them and pending trial and it was necessary to take action under S. 55(b) of the Act, the Magistrate, after issuing show cause notice and holding inquiry, having made the impugned order, the petitioners have approached this court invoking the inherent powers on the ground that the externment order passed by the Magistrate is not in compliance with S. 55 of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarappa Vs. Puttamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1145
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. This is a tenant's revision petition challenging the decree for eviction, under Clauses (f) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, in HRC No. 1273 of 1973 (renumbered as 1431/1981), dated 22nd April 1983, on the file of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore. The tenant was granted six months time to vacate, by virtue of stay order, he continues to stay. Second respondent in this petition is the alleged sub-tenant, who is admittedly in possession of portion of the disputed premises. He claims to be a partner with the petitioner, on the basis of an unregistered partnership deed dated 2nd May 1977. These proceedings, initiated on 11th October 1973, having completed thirteen years, are in their fourteenth year.2. Original land lord, though fortunate to see his claim being decreed, died on 18-5-1984, without realizing its fruits. His wife is brought on record as his legal representative.3. Petitioner originally sought eviction only on th...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmaiah Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Sub-divisional Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1909
ORDERPatil, J.1. In this revision filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 5-4-1982 passed by Mr. G.V. Kongawad, Assistant Commissioner & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chickballapur Sub Division, Chickballapur, in Case No. MAG. CR. 1/82-83 and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Cr. A.No. 12/82 by his judgment and order dated 10-12-1984.2. Under the impugned order, the petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month for the offence of Contempt of Court punishable under Section 228 IPC, in exercise of the summary powers under Section 345 Cr.P.C. It is stated, on 5-4-1982, at about 1 PM, when Mr. G.V, Kongawad, Assistant Commissioner & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chickballapur, was in session and hearing some Land Acquisition Cases mentioned in the order under revision and particularly hearing Case Nos. BS.LAQ ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »