Karnataka Court August 1988 Judgments
B. Krishnabhat Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2865; 1988(2)KarLJ481
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In these petitions filed by the petitioners, the facts and questions of law that fall for consideration being common, they are disposed of by the following order.2. The petitioners are all owners of sites in what is known as Vishwabharathi Housing Complex situated in Banashankari III Stage, except the petitioner in second of the Writ Petitions who is residing in the Industrial Suburb, Rajajinagar II Stage. They have asserted that Banashankari III Stage or the Industrial Suburb of Rajajinagar has not been handed over to the Bangalore City Corporation. They have further alleged that the Bangalore Development Authority has been collecting house or property tax, vacant land tax and other taxes and cesses from the petitioners. The petitioners contend that Notification dated 14th May, 1981 issued by the Government gazetted on 21st May 1981 (Annexure-A) in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 (hereinafter referre...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sachidananda Chatra and ors. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant303; ILR1988KAR2957
ORDER1.These writ petitions are directed against the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada, at its meeting held on 18-6-1988 in Subject No. 2/88-89, in respect of application dt. 19-1-1988 of respondent 2 for grant of pucca stage carriage permit on the route Varahi Irrigation Project-Mani Dam to Mangalore via Hulikal Gate, Balebare, Hosangadi, SiddApura, Ampar, Kandlur, Basroor, Kundapur, Kota, Sastan Brahmavar, Udupi, Mulki, Mangalore - one round trip; Varahi to Kundapur - shuttle service; Kundapur to Mangalore - Express service with halts at above said stations for a period of five years as per the notified timings, the petitioners being rival applicants.2. The common grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned resolution of the R.T.A. deserves to be quashed for noncompliance with the requirements of natural justice since the R.T.A. declined to club together the applications of the petitioners along with the application of respondent 2 dt. 19-1...
Tag this Judgment!Mineral Miners' Union Vs. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2878; 1988(3)KarLJ162; (1989)ILLJ277Kant
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. This appeal is by the writ petitioner, against the dismissal of the writ petition, leaving liberty for the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute or to resort to any other remedy available in law in so far it related to the deduction of eight days wages of the members of the petitioners Union. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : (i) On 1st September, 1984, the petitioner-Union issued notice of its intention to go on one day token strike any day after 20th September, 1984 (vide Annexure-A in writ petition). On 10th September 1984 the Management replied that the strike was unjustified and the allegations levelled against it in the notice were baseless and advised the Union not to go on strike. On 18th September 1984, the Management cautioned that it the workmen were to go on one day token strike as informed by them, action would be taken against them. Thereafter in terms of Section 20(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act...
Tag this Judgment!B. Rahamathulla Khan and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant157; ILR1988KAR2646; 1988(3)KarLJ395
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. Whether a provision in R. 366 of the Karnataka Motor, Vehicles Rules, 1961, authorising any police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police deputed from the State Police, Department to*' the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation to seize and detain vehicles, is violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is the significant question in, these cases.2. Rule 366 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the vires of which has been challenged, reads as under'Officers authorised to, seize and detain: vehicles - Police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police, any Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police deputed, of the State Police Department to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and any officer of the, Motor-Vehicles Department not below the rank of an Inspector of Motor Vehicles may, if he has reason to believe that a Motor Vehicle has been or is bei...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. C. Thimmaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3105; 1988(2)KarLJ365
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner sought the quashing of an order of the second respondent dated 16th June, 1982 whereby the preliminary objection raised by the writ petitioner against the enquiry in respect of the alteration of the date of birth, was overruled. The said enquiry was being held under the provisions of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition.2. The facts in brief are:The petitioner was a Government servant and his date of birth was entered as 13-6-1926 in the service register. However, on 31-3-1979 the Director of Public Instructions sent a communication to the petitioner informing him that his date of birth has been ascertained as 13-6-1922 and sought his explanation as to why he should not be retired on the basis of the said ascertained date of birth. This was challenged by the petitioner in an earlier Writ P...
Tag this Judgment!Maratt Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, District Circle-iv, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2894; [1989]72STC18(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the 'Act' for short). The assessment for the year 1983-84 was completed on 1st October, 1985. The second respondent initiated action under section 22-A(1) of the Act, and issued notice on 17th August, 1987 proposing to set aside the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer ('CTO', for short), and to remit the case for a de novo assessment, to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments) ('ACCT'). 2. After hearing the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed an order on 22nd December, 1987 confirming the proposal made in the show cause notice. This order is challenged in this writ petition on several grounds. 3. The first ground of attack by Sri Ramabhadran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that there is no error in the order passed by the CTO, much less any prejudice is caused to the interests of the Revenue, to...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyacharan Shukla Vs. B.S. Adityan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2784
P.K. Shyamasundar, J.1. These are 5 Original Suits transferred to this Court for disposal by an order of the Supreme Court of India made on the 9th February, 1988 on an application made by one Adityan against whom there were a spate of suits virtually all over the Country. In the context of application made by Adityan, the Order referred to above came to be passed by the Supreme Court transferring all the cases to this Court for disposal. Supreme Court while passing the aforesaid Order had also directed the suits to be disposed off within three months from the date of Order if that was possible but regrettably it has not been possible to comply with that direction since the order along with the records in several cases was received by this Court after more than two months had elapsed from the date of Supreme Court's Order made on 9th February, 1988 (Ex.D-41). Thereafter it was noticed that in most of the cases service of summons had not been completed and pleadings were also not comple...
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Venkatesh Vs. Azad Commercial Chit Fund
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1988
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas10(Kar); 1989(1)KarLJ251
Doddakale Gowda, J.1. Divergent view expressed in Navjeevan Enterprises (Mysore) P. Ltd. v. T. N. Ramalingaiah [1982] 2 Kar LJ 88, [1985] 58 Comp Cas 217 (Kar) 914 and Economic Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. V. P. S. Krishnoji Rao (C. R. P. 3750 of 1981 and other connected cases, disposed of on February 16,1984-{1985} 58 Comp Cas 838 (Kar) regarding the scope and ambit of the definition of 'debt' as defined in the Karnataka Debt Relief Act and their applicability to chit transactions, has led to this reference.2. Both the Karnataka Debt Relief Act,1976 (Act No. 25 of 1976) ('the 1976 Act 'for short) and the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980 (Act No. 29 of 1980) ('the 1980 Act' for short), are in operation in the State of Karnataka.3. 'Debt', 'debtor' and 'exemption' clause in the said two Acts read thus;---------------------------------------------------------------------K.D.R. Act,1976 K.D.R. Act, 1980---------------------------------------------------------------------3(b) `Debt' means any liabi...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Smt. B. Kusua Rai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1988
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas712(Kar); 1989(1)KarLJ52
Navadgi, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1977,made by the First Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, the appellant, and Smt. B. Kusuma T. Rai, the respondent herein were the defendant and the plaintiff respectively in the trial court. The appellant and the respondent in this appeal, for the sake of convenience, would be referred to in the course of this judgment as the defendant and the plaintiff respectively. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 6 of 1975, seeking a decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 as due under the policy bearing No. S. 39675124, a sum of Rs. 5,385 towards interest on Rs. 30,000 from January 6, 1972, to January 3, 1975, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and a sum of Rs. 15 towards the cost of registered notice. 3. The facts on which the plaintiff founded her reliefs are these : B.S. Thimmappa Rai (hereinafter referred to as 'the assured'),the husban...
Tag this Judgment!Fakru Sab Vs. HussaIn Be
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR681; 1988(2)KarLJ542
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. There was an order of temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property in question by the plaintiff. The finding is that the 1st defendant has trespassed into the land and removed a tree. His explanation that such removal was a bona fide action, as per the direction issued by the Karnataka Electricity Board Authority has not been accepted by the Courts below. The learned Munsiff directed that the first defendant shall be detained in civil prison for a period of one month. That order was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishnappa, contends that the detention of a person under Rule 2A(1) of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a matter of course; there is a discretion vested in the Court either to attach the property of the person who has contravened the order of injunction or to detain him in civil prison. Primarily, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »