Karnataka Court September 1988 Judgments
Gerald C.S. Lobo Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas290(Kar); 1989(1)KarLJ182
P.K. Shyamsundar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 346 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff, Mangalore, and is directed against the divergent decrees of the courts below in that the trial court decreeing the plaintiff's suit and the civil judge, on appeal, reversing the said decree. 2. The suit was for recovering a sum of Rs. 2,350 with costs, etc. The claim was made against one of the branches of the defendant, Canara Bank, at Mangalore, where, admittedly, the plaintiff had a S.B. account bearing No. 201 which account was in existence for quite some time (parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant). 3. It is common ground that the plaintiff credited to the defendant- bank a cheque for Rs. 3,003.50 on February 20, 1968, for realisation and ultimately for crediting to his account. That was an outstation cheque drawn on a bank at Bangalore and, consequently, it was in due course sent by the defendant-bank to one of its branches in Gandhinagar, Bangalore, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Babasaheb @ Ranganagouda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3081
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. These two Writ Petitions are referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court, which involve the interpretation of Section 118(1A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961 (referred as 'the Act').2. The question is, whether a decision of the Land Tribunal under Section 67 of the Act pertaining to the determination of the ceiling area is appealable to the Appellate Authority under the aforesaid Section 118(1A).3. Till the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (referred as the Ordinance hereinafter), it is an admitted fact that the decision of the tribunal under the Act was final in all respects and there was no provision for appeal against its order. However, the Ordinance which came into effect on 6th December, 1985 provided for an appeal against certain orders of the Land Tribunal. The Ordinance amended Section 48A by deleting the words 'the order of the Tribunal under this Section shall be final and', ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: [1993]200ITR353(KAR); [1993]200ITR353(Karn)
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. In these references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following common questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire cinema theatre comprising each and every part of the theatre, whether it is within the auditorium portion of it or outside it, including rolling shutters, fountains, mirrors, furniture and fixtures, etc., outside the auditorium is 'plant' for the purposes of the Act or only certain parts of the theatre are plant (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case wall, ceiling, including wooden walls, false ceiling, and wooden panelling of the auditorium and furniture and fixtures including chairs in the auditorium could be treated as plant ?' 2. The brief facts giving rise to the above questions are as follows : The assessee is a partnership-firm carrying on the ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subbarayappa Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Mandya and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant297
ORDER1.This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents, is taken up for final hearing by consent of the learned counsel for both the parties and disposed of by this order.2. Sri P. R. Ramesh, learned Government Pleader, is directed to take notice for respondent-1.3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:The petitioner is an existing operator operating the transport service from Bangalore to Nagamangala and back under permit No. P.St.P.2/88-89 via Tavarakere, Magadi, Huliyurdurga, Amruthur, Haradanahalli and Nagamangala.3.1. The second respondent is operating his transport service from Bangalore to Mandya via Kunigal, Amruthur, Ramenahalli Cross, Shilpapura, Mylarpatna, Nagamangala T.B., Nagamangala. and on to Mandya under permit No. P.St.P.2/81-82 issued by the first respondent.3.2. The Regional Transport Authority, Mandya, respondent-1, initiated proceedings by exercising his powers under S. 48(3)(xxi) of the M...
Tag this Judgment!Booda Poojari Vs. Thomu Poojarthi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR781
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this matter coming up for admission after notice, a very important question has been raised by the petitioner and having regard to the numerous matters pending before various Land Reforms Appellate Authorities, this revision is disposed of by the following order finally.2. The petitioner was the tenant - appellant before the Appellate Authority, Udupl, in LRA.73 of 1987 on its file. The appellant filed two applications which were numbered as I.As. 1 and 2. I.A.1 was under Section 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying for stay of the operation of the order dated 28-9-1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupl, in proceedings under the Act for registration of occupancy rights. I.A.2 was one purporting to have been made under Order 39 Rules 1 to 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an injunction directing respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal before the Appellate Authority from inter...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Kumar Sinha and ors. Vs. Bangalore University and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant274; 1988(1)KarLJ462
ORDER1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since a common point arises for consideration in all these petitions.2. The petitioners are students who had taken the 1 Year B.E. Degree Examination conducted by the Bangalore University-1st respondent they are the students of M. V. J. College of Engineering, near White Field, Bangalore. They appear to have sought for admission to the I Year B. E. Degree Course in the aforesaid College, though they had not obtained the minimum qualifying marks: of 50% on the ground that they belonged to Backward Tribes and Backward Classes and these Backward Tribes/Classes are entitled to take the benefit of the Government Order relaxing the minimum percentage of marks required for B. E. Course from 50% to 35%. In support of the plea that they belonged to Backward Tribes/Backward Classes, the petitioners produced certain certificates obtained by them from the authorities in their home State, All these petitioners hail from Bihar State. The 2nd ...
Tag this Judgment!C.G. Somashankar Vs. Town Muncipal Council
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1255
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. Petitioners, who are members of the Town Municipal Council, Magadi Town, are aggrieved by the notices issued as at Annexures 'C' & 'D' by which the Chief Officer has called for a meeting on 29-9-1988 to consider two resolutions at the meeting expressing lack of confidence in the President and Vice-President respectively of the Town Municipal Council. The notices are dated 21-9-1988.2. Contention in this Court is that the notices are issued in violation of the first proviso to Sub-section (9) of Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and therefore void as ruled by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 2392 of 1982, disposed of on 28-7-19823. Facts leading to these Writ Petitions may be stated briefly and they are as follows:- By two letters addressed to the President bearing the date 5-9-1988, 11 members of the Magadi Town Municipal Council who are signatories to those letters, intimated that they had no confidence i...
Tag this Judgment!Topasa Ramasa Patil Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant279
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition is an owner of a hotel. He has two installations of electric meters in his business premises, namely, R. R. No. CH. 13.5 MPI B.24 and 16711, 7B26. While the one is a power meter, the other is a light meter. The respondents have raised two bills as per Annexure F and G filed in the petition. A perusal of those two bills discloses that back billing has been done due to slow recording of the above meters. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents under Annexure F and G on the ground that the Electricity Board had no jurisdiction to conclude that a particular meter is functioning correctly or not or whether the same is not recording the actual energy consumed or is recording slowly. According to the petitioner, such a dispute squarely falls within the provisions of S. 26(6) of the Electricity Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this petition should not be entertained inasmuch as the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Agencies and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC140(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. In these two writ petitions the petitioners who are dealers in cycles, cycle parts and accessories, have challenged the proposition notices issued by the assessing authorities proposing to tax the sale turnover in 'cycle locks' under entry 150 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the Act' for short). The petitioners have also challenged the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, that cycle locks are taxable under entry 150 of the Second Schedule at 10 per cent as a lock falling under the said entry, which reads as follows : 'All kinds of padlocks and locks'. 2. A brief legislative history relating to the levy of tax on the sale of cycle locks under the Act is necessary to be stated in order to properly appreciate the petitioners' case and decide the point in controversy. 3. Entry 14 of the Second Schedule to the Act, as was found in the Act right from the inception, as inserted by the Act 25 of 1957, read as f...
Tag this Judgment!Nageeb Abdulqader Bamatraf Vs. the University of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant302; 1989(1)KarLJ36
ORDER1.This petition was adjourned from time to time after hearing the parties in order to ascertain whether a pass in the subject known as Commercial Kannada is necessary for taking a degree in the B.B.M. Course of the Mysore University. B. B. M. Course is an acronym for Bachelor of Business Management.2. The petitioner is a student and a foreign national from South Yemen and his grievance is that as the University does not teach Kannada in the B.B.M. Course, the University cannot insist on a student, that too a foreign student, to obtain a pass in Commercial Kannada. The Kannada book prescribing the syllabus for the examination is also produced before me and what this Court could gather from that book is that the person who seeks to obtain a degree in the said course must have a working knowledge of Kannada, that is to say Commercial Kannada, to put it in other words, so that he would be in a position to correspond in Kannada in regard to the business matters when he actually starts ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »