Karnataka Court July 1988 Judgments

State of Karnataka Vs. Anand Manjunath Pai

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR3051; 1988(2)KarLJ211

ORDER1. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dharwar, by order dated 25-6-1986 passed in Kalaghatgi P.S. Cr. No. 63 of 1982, having directed to release the vehicle seized to the respondent and the same having been confirmed, on revision, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwar, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 132 of 1986, by his order dated 19-11-1986, the petitioner State has presented this petition. 2. The vehicle bearing registration No. MEW 8098, which was allegedly used in transporting the Sandalwood, was seized by the Police during investigation on 18-6-1986 from Unkal garrage. Accordingly, a report, regarding the same, was sent to the Magistrate. On the respondent-owner of the vehicle making an application under S. 457 Cr.P.C. for the interim custody of the vehicle, he directed to entrust the custody of the vehicle so seized to the respondent on certain conditions, on the ground that the vehicle was not seized together with the forest produce by his order dated 25-6-1986. 2A. ...

Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. N. Abdul Kareem

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(1989)ACC81; ILR1989KAR1311

ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. In this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act'), a duly stamped memo of appearance, which is signed by Sri A.K. Bhat, an Advocate of this Court, has been filed. It reads:'That in the original proceeding I was appearing for the petitioner who is respondent herein. I have instructions to continue to appear in this appeal. Hence, this memo.'According to the Registry of this Court, instead of the memo of appearance, adverted to above, a duly stamped vakalathnama signed by the Advocate should have been filed by the Advocate, so as to make it acceptable. Since Sri A.K. Bhat questions the correctness of the said stand taken by the Registry, the matter is before us for orders.2. What, therefore, arises for our consideration and decision is whether an Advocate appearing for a party before the Claims Tribunal in a proceeding under Section 110-A of the Act, can file therefrom an appeal or resist an appeal arising therefrom by filing a duly st...

City Municipal Council Vs. C. Ramu

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1989KAR2138

K.A. Swami, J.1. R.F.A.171 of 1976 and R.F.A.94 of 1983 arise out of O.S.No. 67 of 1972. R.F.A.94 of 1985 arises out of O.S.No. 125 of 1972. O.S.67 of 1972 was filed by the appellant in R.F.A.94 of 1983, and R.F.A.171 of 1976 and R.F.A.94 of 1985 are filed by the City Municipal Council, Mysore, which is the defendant in O.S.67 of 1972 and plaintiff in O.S.125 of 1972. The defendant in O.S.125 of 1972 is the plaintiff in O.S.67 of 1972.2. R.F.A.94 of 1985, having regard to the value of the claim, was filed before the District Court, Mysore as R.A.4 of 1976 and subsequently by the order dated 14-2-1985 the appeal has been withdrawn from the file of the District Court, Mysore and It is heard along with other two appeals, because both the suits were tried together and a common evidence was recorded and a common Judgment was delivered by the trial-Court.3. R.F.A.171 of 1976 is filed by the defendant in O.S.67 of 1972 and R.F.A.94 of 1983 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.67 of 1972. R.F.A.94...

indra Prakash Chabra Vs. Regional Transport Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2977; 1988(2)KarLJ389

ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is a holder of an All India Tourist permit - T.V.P.23(1-2)80. The said permit covers more than one vehicle as provided under Section 59A of the Motor Vehicles Act (the 'Act' for short). CAW 1333 and - CAW 2071 are the two vehicles covered by the said permit. The tourist omni-bus - CAW 1333 was replaced by another omni bus - CAW 2071 and the replacement was endorsed by the Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority, as per the endorsement dated - 7-4-1988 (Annexure-'D').2. Tax under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act had been paid on 4-4-1988 in respect of CAW 2071 upto 30th June 1988 as per the interim-orders made by the Supreme Court in W.P.Nos.6316 to 6325/87 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per seat per quarter.3. But, another sum of Rs.34,000/- was collected from the petitioner in respect of the same replaced vehicle on 7-4-88 for the same quarter. This collection appears to have been made on the strength of a Circular issued by the Commissio...

B.V. Veena Vs. Director, Ncc Directorate

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2660; 1988(3)KarLJ409

Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Appellant was the petitioner in W.P.No. 12096/87. Her prayer for a Writ of Mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 to select and admit her to I Year MBBS degree course in any Government Medical College or against Government seats in any private Medical College, under the quota reserved for NCC candidates was rejected by the learned single Judge. Hence this appeal:2. During the academic year 1987-88, petitioner was one of the candidates who applied for a seat in I Year MBBS degree course. In the PUC examination she had secured 84.66% marks in the relevant subjects. She appeared for the Entrance Examination called 'Entrance Test'. She secured the rank No. 1974 in the Merit List prepared as provided by the relevant Rules.3. According to the petitioner, she was an outstanding NCC cadet, and as such, was eligible to be considered for selection in the quota reserved for NCC candidates. The quota was 15 seats. It is her contention that out of those who fall within this category...

Annayya Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1989KAR932; 1988(2)KarLJ263

ORDERBopanna, J1. Since elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel on both the sides on the interim order sought for by the petitioners, these petitions are treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. In the originary course these petitions should have been dismissed on the short ground that the very same preliminary notification was sustained by this Court in W.P.No. 2628/85 disposed of on 14th January 1987. Justice Swami had dismissed the petition filed by one Balappa Reddy who was an owner of the land bearing Survey No. 167 of Kodihalli village and the notifications impugned therein is the same notification impugned in these petitions. The decision of the learned Judge was affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1406/87 Balappa Reddy v. State of Karnataka. But the learned Counsel for the petitioners in these petitions had raised certain points which according to him were not urged before the learned Single Judge in the earlier ...

C.N. Seetharam Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2053; 1988(2)KarLJ310

ORDER1. The petitioner C. N. Seetharam is accused-1 in Cr. No. 1/83 registered in Harihar Police Station for the alleged commission of the offences of forgery of a document and using it as genuine document punishable under sections 465 and 471 r/w 34 IPC. Cr.P. 989/86 has been filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings including the FIR and the charge sheet, on the file of the J.M.F.C., Harihar, and the writ petition No. 19555/86 has been filed for quashing the sanction accorded by the Government for prosecution (Annexure-A) on the ground that the sanction has been accorded without applying the mind. 2. Few salient facts leading to these petitions as averred and as can be gathered from the materials placed in the two petitions are as follows : On the application in Form No. 7 made by one Ningappa for grant of occupancy right in respect of S. No. 12/A of Nandigavi village, a case bearing No. LRM.TC. 598/76-77 was registered in the Land Tribunal, Harihar. It came to be dispo...

Venkatalakshmamma Vs. Rajkumar Bhatia

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1988KAR2352; 1988(2)KarLJ227

ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13-3-1984 of the Court of XIX Additional Small Causes, Bangalore City, in H.R.C. No. 3200 of 1982 (old H.R.C. No. 3071 of 1977).2. The petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule premises and the respondent is the tenant.3. The material facts of the case are as follows :The petitioner had leased out the petition schedule premises for residential purpose to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. The petitioner is staying in the I Floor and the respondent is in occupation of the Ground Floor of the same premises. The petitioner's family, at the time of filing the eviction petition, consisted of her husband, two sons and two daughters. When the eviction proceedings were in progress before the trial Court, one of the two sons got married; but the two daughters were unmarried, The I Floor is stated to consist of one verandah, one hall, one bed-room, one store, one dining hall, one pooja roo...

Abdul Jabbar Vs. Devarajaiah

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1989KAR705

Shyamasundar, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff and is directed against the concurrent set of Judgments rendered by the two Courts below holding that he was vainly contending against the decisions of the authorities under the Irrigation Act, upholding the defendant's right to take water from a smaller channel coursing through the plaintiff's land in Survey No. 192 of Prabhuvanahalli to his own land in Survey No. 173/1 in the neighbourhood thereof.2. It is common ground that the plaintiff and the defendant having fallen out on the issue regards the defendant's right to take water source supposedly located in the plaintiff's land in Survey No. 192. There was an enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner as an Irrigation Officer purportedly under Section 12 of the Irrigation Act ('Act' for short). The Assistant Commissioner held that the defendant had the right to take water through a small channel called 'Pilla Kaluve' which is existed in Survey No. 192 and that the same should cater to th...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya Bank

Court: Karnataka

Rajendra Babu, J. 1. In this reference, two questions have been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, and they are as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,73,494 is not liable to be included in the computation of chargeable interest ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy received by the applicant from the Reserve Bank of India in respect of export credit made available by it to its constituents, would fall under the definition of interest under Section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, and as such could be included in the chargeable interest under Section 5 ?' 2. The first question is referred at the instance of the Revenue and the second question is referred at the instance of the assessee. So far as the answer to the first question is concer...