Karnataka Court March 1988 Judgments
Sahyadri Wine Traders Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1202; 1988(1)KarLJ452
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these Writ Petitions referred to Division Bench by the learned Single Judge, the question for consideration is, whether Section 43(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioners are liquor merchants possessing licences issued under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is alleged that, on an inspection of the licenced shop premises of the petitioner in WP. 11715/81, the authorities found excess and unaccounted stock of 29.730 litres of IML and consequently seized the entire stock of liquor under Section 43(2) of the Act for the alleged offence under Sections 32 & 36(b) of the Act. The stock of liquor, thus seized, included the liquor which the petitioner had lawful authority to possess. Ultimately an order was made on 9-6-1981 (Annexure-C) permitting compounding of the offence, by levying a compounding fee of Rs. 1,000/-. The...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Ningappa Ramachandra Gurav
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1380; 1988(1)KarLJ466
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. This Judgment of ours would dispose of Writ Appeal Nos. 1942, 1943, 2184, 2250, 2251, 2253, 2309 & 2565/1987, as a common question of law and fact arises in all these cases.2. The principal question of law that needs decision in these cases is whether an Adhyaksha having been properly authorised through a resolution by the Zilla Parishad, can validly nominate two persons from the Backward Classes under Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. So far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. What the Zilla Parishads have done in all these cases is that they have authorised their respective Adhyaksha (President) by resolution properly passed to nominate two persons from the Backward Classes and in pursuance to that resolution, the Adhyaksha has made such nominations. Through all these petitions, the nominations made by the Adhyaksha have ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Basavannappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1667; 1988(1)KarLJ544
Rama Jois, J.1. In these Writ Appeals presented against the order of the learned Single Judge, in which the validity of a scheme approved by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was challenged, the following two questions of law arise for consideration :(1) Whether the exemption granted in favour of State Transport Undertakings of other States only regarding the operation of Inter-State routes, in a scheme approved by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 68D of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?(2) Whether the embargo placed on the Inter-State permits of private operators, saved in the scheme approved by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Act, regarding variation of the conditions attached to the permit both in respect of number of trips and number of vehicles to be operated is invalid and cannot prevail over Section 57(8) of the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Saibanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: II(1988)ACC510; ILR1988KAR1942; 1988(2)KarLJ62
Desai, J.1. The respondent was the accused in C.C.No. 3802/ 1982 on the file of the II Additional J.M.F.C., Gulbarga, and he will be hereinafter referred to as the accused. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. on the allegation that on 27-9-1981, at about 1-00 p.m., on Shahapur-Gulbarga road, near Kellur bus-stand, he drove car bearing registration No. MYP 6546, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Subhadrabai, who was proceeding along with her brother, P.W.4., on the eastern portion of the road, and caused her death.2. As the accused denied the commission of the offence, P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined and Exhibits P-1 to 6 and M.Os.1 to 4 were produced. Exhibit D-1 was not marked in the cross-examination of Nabisab, P.W.7. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. Analysing the evidence, the Learned Magistrate held that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshodhara Kadamba Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2447
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the resolution passed by the 2nd respondent in Subject No. 173/87-88 dated 16-1-1988 (vide Annexure 'A') and also the order of 1st respondent passed in URA No. 98/1988 dated 4-3-1988 (vide Annexure 'B') and sought the issue of a Writ of certiorari for quashing Annexures 'A' and 'B' and further for a mandamus directing 2nd respondent to grant replacement of the vehicle as prayed for by the petitioner.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit authorised to operate on the route Mangalore to Malleswara and by vehicle bearing No. CTA 9878 of 1987 model having a seating capacity of 48+2+10. Thereafter, the petitioner acquired a vehicle bearing No. CRX. 9877 which is also of 1987 model vehicle having a seating capacity of 32 + 2 + 7 (Mitsubishi). The petitioner applied on 6-1-1988 for replacement of the present vehicle of 1987 model to subserve public interest.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Doddanagouda Vs. Rythara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2528
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award of respondent-3 vide Annexure-B dated 9-1-1978 passed in Dispute No. 856/76-77 and also the Judgment dated 4-9-1980 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 860/79.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:The petitioner was the President of Masudipura Service Co-operative Society Ltd. Under Section 14A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act') the aforesaid Society was amalgamated with Jayamuddallikarjuna Service Co-operative Society and the 1st respondent Society thus came into existence. According to the petitioner, he did not borrow any loan either from Masudipura Service Co-operative Society Ltd., or from the 1st respondent Society except a small sum of Rs. 1,000/-.3. It is further stated by the petitioner that one Veerappa who is working as Administrative Clerk of the B.D.C.C. Bank, Hospet, was close to...
Tag this Judgment!S. Visweswariah Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR568]; (1988)IILLJ233Kant
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. S. Visweswaraiah has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 19th January 1983 by which Writ Petition No. 10062/76 filed by him has been dismissed. 2. The Vanguard Insurance Company Limited with its registered office at Madras was engaged in the business of doing general insurance. The Company has a branch office at Bangalore and the appellant was working as its Manager. On 13th May 1971, the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 123(1) of the Constitution, promulgated the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1971, (No. 6 of 1971), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'), pending complete nationalisation of general insurance in the country, inter-alia providing for transfer of the management of the undertakings of general insurance to the Central Government. Consequently from 13th May 1971 the business of the Vanguard Insuranc...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jabbar Khan Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Mysore Region, Mysor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant215; ILR1988KAR2592; 1988(1)KarLJ495
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the endorsement dt. 15-12-1986 vide Annexure-E issued by the respondent rejecting his application for alteration of the seating capacity in respect of his motor vehicle bearing Registration No. CAO 6106.2. The petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. CAO 6106, which has been registered as a tourist taxi cab with a seating capacity of 6+1. For certain reasons, the petitioner wanted to have the alteration of the seating capacity by reducing it from 6+1 to 5+1. The permission of the competent authority as provided under Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is necessary to carry out such an alteration. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application on 16-9-1986. On the very same day, the respondent issued an endorsement to the effect that the petitioner should not carry out any alteration as desired by him until the respondent grants permission. Beyond that nothing els...
Tag this Judgment!Avalappa Vs. Krishnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3347
Hiremath, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in the original suit and respondent-1 is the second defendant where as the 2nd respondent is the first defendant. One Jangamaiah was the father of the plaintiff and first defendant. Plaintiff brought the original suit for declaration of his title to the schedule properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. He claims to be owner of as many as eight agricultural lands shown in the schedule and he pleaded that these properties had fallen to his share in a partition that took place on 22-6-1962 between him and his elder brother defendant-1 Narayanappa. Their father died in or about the year 1946. Since partition he had been in actual possession and enjoyment of all the schedule properties fallen to his share. Munivenkatappa the paternal grandfather of the second defendant happens to be the elder brother of Jangamaiah. Narayanamma wife of said Munivenkatappa and Doddakempamma wife of Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Mysore Sugar Company Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC134; 1992(61)ELT574(Kar); ILR1988KAR2276
Bopanna, J.1. These appeals are disposed of by a common order since a common question touching the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the notification dated 4-10-1973 (Annexure A produced in W.A. No. 1910/83) as amended by the notification dated 20-4-1974 arises for consideration in these appeals. The notifications were made by the Central Government in exercise of the power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 granting certain percentage of rebate on the payment of excise duty for the manufacture of sugar for the period 1-10-1973 to 30-9-1974. The amendment of Annexure A notification by Annexure B notification is not very material for the purpose of these appeals since the point for consideration is the effect of the proviso to the notification (Annexure A) on the quantum of rebate that was admissible to the sugar factories for the period 1-10-1973 to 30-9-1974. The interpretation of this notification has given rise to conflicting judgments in other...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »