Karnataka Court July 1987 Judgments
B.V. Krishnamurthy and Etc. Etc. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Kant269; ILR1987KAR2640; 1987(2)KarLJ155
Rama Jois, J. 1. The following question of law is referred for the opinion of the Full Bench: 'Whether the persons promoted to the next higher posts though they had not passed the service examinations prescribed for promotion to such posts, under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974 during the period commencing from 10-11-974 up to 30-4-1977 in view of Rule 4 of, the Rules, are liable to be reverted on and after 1-5-1977 if by that time they had not passed the service examinations prescribed for the concerned promotional post under the: rule?' 2. The material facts necessary for answering the above question are these: the Governor of the State, in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Art 309 of the Constitution, promulgated the rules called 'The Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), on 81-1974. The Rules came into force on 10-11-19...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Y. Mohammed Kunhi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2739; 1987(2)KarLJ298
Shyamasundar, J.1. This is a reference made by a Division Bench, consisting of their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagannatha Shetty (as he then was) and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandrakanthar Urs, JJ. in R.A. 104 of 1975, which is still pending disposal.2. At the hearing of the appeal a question having arisen as to the appropriate Article of Limitation to be applied to determine whether the suit out of which the appeal arose was in time or not, their Lordships to whom a decision of another Division Bench in State of Karnataka v. C.C. Transport Co., (R.F.As. 2 and 3 of 1975 D/- 20-12-1984), was referred, felt a doubt about the correctness of that decision as to applicability of Article 24 of the Limitation Act. Before the referring Bench reliance had been placed on behalf of the State, on the decision in C.C. Transport Company's case in support of the contention that Article 24 and not Article 22 of the Limitation Act ('Act' for short) was attracted and that the Court below was in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Karnataka State Transport Ap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR255; 1987(3)KarLJ161
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing, by means of an appropriate writ, of the judgment dated 22-2-1980 rendered in Appeal No. 249 of 1979 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal'), is sought.2. Antecedent material facts are briefly these: Respondent-3, by his application dated 8-2-1978 under Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), sought from the Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada (for short 'the R.T.A.') grant of a pucca stage carriage permit for running a stage carriage service of one round trip a day on the route - Thirthahally to Mangalore via Hulikal, Haladi, Coondapur, Kota, Brahmavar, Udupi and Mulki, according to the time-schedule proposed therein. That application's substance was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 23-3-1978, inviting filing of representations thereto, if any, and announcing the date fixed by the R.T.A. for hearing on ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran Vs. Khaleeq Ahmed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR265
Kulkarni, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18th March 1987 passed by the 16th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No. 3681/ 1985 dismissing the same.2. The defendant-landlord had filed a H.R.C. case in H.R.C.5036/1980 against the present plaintiff in the Court of the Small Causes, Bangalore City, for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. An application was filed by the present defendant in the said H.R.C. case under Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act on the ground that the defendant had not paid the rental arrears and had not been paying rent. The Small Causes Judge after hearing the said H.R.C. case stopped the further proceedings under Section 29(4) and ordered eviction of the plaintiff, and ordered him to put the landlord in possession of the property. That order passed under Section 29(4) has admittedly become final.3. The defendant-landlord sued out execution in Execution Case No. 4529/19...
Tag this Judgment!Katyanamma Vs. Deputy Commissioner for Transport
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR352
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. By consent of learned Counsel, this petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard them.2. If the amount of tax paid for a period in respect of a motor vehicle falls short of the tax payable under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), can such deficit be recovered by the taxing authority from the owner of such motor vehicle or the person having possession or control of it, without giving him a prior notice in the matter and an opportunity of being heard thereon, is the short point which arises for decision in this Writ Petition3. The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor vehicle with Registration No. CTA 6555, a stage carriage. She received from the Taxation Authority (respondent-2) a notice dated 26-9-1986 (Annexure-A) by which she was asked to pay Rs. 11,500-00, the amount of tax fallen short of the tax payable for her vehicle under the Act. She preferred an appeal against that notice before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharada Bai Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2730
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal, for enhancement of compensation, by the claimants, arises out of the Judgment and Award dt. 3-9-85, made in MVC 133 of 1983, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwar, granting to the dependants of the deceased-person, a compensation of Rs. 40000/-.While the appellant-claimants complain of inadequacy of the compensation and seek enhancement, the owner of the motor vehicle, viz, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, is aggrieved by the Award even to the extent it goes, on the ground that the finding of the. Tribunal as to actionable-negligence is erroneous and calls for interference in appeal and that, at all events, there ought to have been a mitigation of damages for contributory-negligence on the part or the victim himself.2. The appellant-claimants are the widow and two minor children of a certain Narayana Rao, who died as a result of the injuries sustained in an accident that occurred on 21-12-1982, at 12-30 P.M. in Hubl...
Tag this Judgment!Mamtaj Gaffar Mulla and ors. Vs. Vilas Beedi Factory and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3282; (1988)IILLJ128Kant
ORDER1. Rule. 2. Petitioners have challenged the validity of Order, dated 19th January 1983 passed on Application Nos. 12 and 4 of 1980 dismissing their applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as not maintainable. 3. Petitioners through their applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act sought for computation of the leave wages and the national and festival allowances etc. On a preliminary objection raised by the Management, the Labour Court has held thus :- 'If that is so, the 'Private Dwelling house' will not be an industrial premises. Similarly it cannot be a 'Beedi Industrial Premises' also under the State Act unless it is included in the definition of the 'Beedi Industrial Premises' in the State Act. ...... However I am unable to agree with the argument of Mr. Apte that simply because it is excluded in the Central Act, and not so in the State Act, it should be taken that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act can be invok...
Tag this Judgment!B. K. Nanjundaiah and ors. Vs. the B.D.A., Bangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant227; ILR1987KAR2977
ORDER1. Petitioners to be the owners of S. No. 16 of Malagalu village, Yeswanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, The said land measures 5 acres 20 guntas. Petitioner-1 is the uncle of petitioners 2 and 3. It is state4 that the original owner of this land was B. Kamaiah, the father of the first petitioner who died on 20-12-1978, Thereafter a suit, for partition was filed in 0. S. No. 222 of 1980, on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore. A compromise decree was passed on 12-6-1980. Under the said decree, 2 acres 30 guntas fell to the share of the first petitioner and the remaining 2 acres 30 guntas fell to the share of petitioners 2 and 3. This land along with several other lands was sought to be acquired by B. D. A. for the formation of Nagarabhavi II stage layout. Preliminary notification date 15-7-1982 was published in the Karnataka Gazette date 26-8-1982. For S. No., 16, the following entry is found: -'Dyavaiah bin Devagaiah, A. Ramaiabsetty, Siddappa, bin Puttarangappa, . B. K.am...
Tag this Judgment!Galappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2989
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. Land S. No. 29 of Nagarbhavi village was a Thoti service inam land. All village offices were abolished under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, w.e.f. 1-2-1963. The lands attached to the village offices were resumed by the State and they became liable for the payment of land revenue Sections 5 and 6 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act provided for regrant to the holder and Authorized holders respectively. 'Holder' and 'Authorized Holders' are defined. The limited right given to these persons was to make an application for re-grant. The holders could be granted occupancy rights, on payment of three times the assessment in case of inferior village office and six times of the assessment in case of other village offices. On such regrant, the holder shall be deemed to be occupant or holder of ryotwari patta and shall be liable to pay land revenue to the State Government from the appointed day (i.e. 1-2-1963). In the case of Authorized holder, ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa (T.) Vs. Flemming (India) Apotheke P. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas506(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. This is a petition under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner claims that by virtue of an agreement entered into with the respondent-company, viz. Flemming (India) Apotheke P. Ltd., he is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2,000 per mensem for the use of certain electrical fittings and taps and shower in the house that belongs to his mother under whom respondent- company is a tenant. It is further alleged that the respondent- company paid the said charges up to February, 1984, and defaulted in payments subsequently. As a result thereof, a sum of Rs. 24,000 was due up to February, 1985. Despite a notice sent by registered post and duly served on the respondent, the amount claimed under the said bail agreement for use of electrical fittings, taps and shower has not been paid nor have the subsequent amounts due after notice, been paid. Therefore, the company which is indebted to the petitioner in not having paid the amount demanded which is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »