Karnataka Court November 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Amaregowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1280
ORDERVenkatachala, J. 1. Order of Shahapur Land Tribunal made under Section 67(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act'), was impugned in the Writ Petitions. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions before this Court, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, and subsequently, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1986, which inserted Section 118(1A) in the Act, creating Appellate Authorities with appellate jurisdiction conferred upon them to deal with orders of Land Tribunals, came into force. Thereafter, this Court, by its order dated 21-7-1986, transferred the Writ Petitions for their disposal by the Appellate Authority at Gulbarga, in exercise of its powers under Sub-section (2) inserted in Section 113 of the Act.2. Now, an interlocutory application I.A.I. has been filed in the Writ Petitions, praying for the recalling of the earlier order dated 21-7-1986 made therein transferring them to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority at Gulbarga for their d...
Channaveerappa Vs. Channabasappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1293
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This matter coming up for orders is disposed of by the following order by consent of Counsel for the parties and after hearing the Counsel for the parties.2. Briefly stated facts are as follows:- One K. Channabasappa was the plaintiff in O.S.No. 234 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (revision petitioner in this Court) from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Prior to the filing of that suit, Channaveerappa, the revision petitioner, had filed O.S.No. 187 of 1987 on the file of the Munsiff, Shikaripur, seeking identical relief against Channabasappa the plaintiff in O.S.No. 234 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge. The revision petitioner in his suit has prayed for injunction in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property in the other suit. It was thereafter that Channabasappa filed a petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C. seeking transfer of ...
K.A. Appanna (Lrs. of Late K.A. Kalappa) Vs. Agricultural Income-tax O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Kar)341; [1990]182ITR196(KAR); [1990]182ITR196(Karn); [1990]51TAXMAN474(Kar)
S.R. Rajashekara Murthy, J.1. The first writ petition is filed by the son of the deceased assessee, late Sri K. A. Kalappa, and the second writ petition is filed by K. A. Mandanna represented by the next friend, K. A. Appanna. 2. The notices issued against the petitioners under section 18(2A)(b) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), are challenged in these writ petitions. So far as the first petitions is concerned, the assessee, K. A. Kalappa, died on April 9, 1981. An assessment came to be made on September 8, 1981, in the name of Appanna as legal representative of the deceased assessee. After the completion of the assessment, the respondent issued notice to the petitioner proposing to levy penalty under section 18(2A) (b) of the Act. This notice is dated June 29, 1984. 3. So far as the second assessment against late K. A. Mandanna is concerned, the assessment was completed during the lifetime of K. A. Mandanna on March 29, 1982. A notice under section 18(2) ...
Sharanappa Basappa Dindawar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR218; 1990(1)KarLJ91
Rama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal is presented against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant, in which, he had challenged the order of the Land Tribunal, Bijapur Taluk.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow:-The appellant, was owning 15 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No. 10? and 28 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No. 28/2 of Ankalagi village in Bijapur taluk. The total extent of land held by him was 43 acres 16 guntas. By a registered Exchange Deed dated 18-8-1971 the appellant exchanged 28 acres 10 guntas of land to 30 acres 24 guntas of land in Sy.No. 175 belonging to one Gurappa Bhimaraya Biradar. The resultant position was, the appellant was having 15 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No. 102 and 30 acres 24 guntas in Sy.No. 175 which had been got by exchange, the total being 45 acres 30 guntas.3. The Land Reforms Act, 1961 was subjected to certain revolutionary amendments with effect from 1-3-1974. According to Section 66 of the Act, ceiling for holding of a...
Anjuman-e-lslam Vs. Karnataka Board of Wakfs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR214; 1990(1)KarLJ1
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. The short facts leading to this Writ Appeal are as follows:-The first respondent Karnataka Board of Wakfs by an order dated 6-1-1986 constituted a Managing Committee consisting of 8 members for the management of Anjuman-e-Islam, Masur, Hirekerus Taluk, Dharwad District. The term of Office of the Members of the Committee was at the pleasure of the Board. The Sub-Committee recommended to the Chairman of the District Wakfs Committee, Hubli, to reconstitute the Committee to maintain peace and harmony among the Muslim Community. The Wakf Board taking into consideration the views of the Sub-Committee and the fact that the term of Members was at the pleasure of the Board, dissolved the Managing Committee constituted on 6-1-1986 and took over the management of Anjuman-e-lslam, Masur, and appointed an Administrator to manage its affairs, by its order dated 29-4-1989. Attacking the said order dated 29-4-1989, Writ Petition No. 8857/89 came to be filed. The contention was two f...
M.J. Torgal Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1672; 1990(1)KarLJ77
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. Sri T.R. Subbanna, learned High Court Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents. Copies of the petition with annexures be furnished to him.2. As this petition can be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order in question by way of Criminal Revision Petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petition is heard for final disposal.3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 15-7-1989 bearing No. EXE. CR. No. 5/1989 Annexure-E passed by the Authorised Officer and the Superintendent of Excise, Bijapur District, Bijapur, confiscating the vehicle bearing No. CNJ.6110 and 264.240 litres of I.M.L. seized by the C.P.I. Jamkhandi vide Excise Cr.No.5/89 dated 15-7-1989 under Section 43A(2) of Karnataka Excise (Second Amendment) Act 1987.4. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27th October 1989 passed by the Session...
Saraswathi Devi Prathap Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR289
ORDER OF THE COURT16th November 1989 Allowing Writ Petitions partly: A declaration shall issue to the effect that the Court fee payable at the rate of 10% ad valorem in respect of proceedings for grant of probate or letters of Administration, in cases in which the amount or market value of the subject matter exceeds Rupees Three Lakhs on that part of the amount or value which exceeds Rupees Three Lakhs under Entry 6 of Schedule I to the Act, is inclusive of the Court fee already paid under Entry 11(1) of Schedule I to the Act. ...
Regional Controller Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR448
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is the Regional Controller, National Airports Authority, Santa Cruz, Bombay. He challenges the order passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, on 18th April 1987, in Misc. Case No. 16/1986. This Revision Petition is filed on 26th October 1989; along with the Revision Petition, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and has also filed an application for staying the impugned order. There is a delay of 831 days.2. Under the High Court Rules this revision could not be registered unless the delay is condoned. Mr. Anant Mandagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree-holder has filed execution case No. 167/1987 seeking execution of the modified award and if stay is not granted, he will suffer irreparable injury. He submitted that there is urgency in the matter and an interim order should be issued without insisting on the notice being issued to the respondents, pending I.A.I - for co...
M/S. Jagadale and Sons, Bangalore and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant251; ILR1990KAR101; 1990(1)KarLJ18
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners before us include, manufacturers, wholesale dealers, retail vendors, importers, consumers etc., of liquors. They assert that they are affected by the enforcement of certain Rules, made under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (referred as 'the Act', hereinafter). The Rules, under challenge are:--(1) Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Amendment Rules, 1989; (2) Karnataka Excise (Brewery) (Amendment) Rules, 1989; (3) Karnataka Excise (Manufacture of Wine from Grapes) (Amendment) Rules, 1989; (4) Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) (Amendment) Rules, 1989; and (5) Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1989. 2. The main attack is against the provisions now made for licencing of a sole distributor, which is to be a Government owned or controlled company as may be specified by the Stale Government. The relevant Rule is introduced by substituting clause (11) to Rule 3 by the Karnataka E...
Anjay Bansal Vs. Bangalore University and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant225; ILR1990KAR239
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the Notification dated 9-8-1985 issued by the Bangalore University partially to the extent that it prohibits revised ranking in respect of those examinees who derive benefit in the revaluation save the declaration of class.2. According to the aforesaid Notification, it is provided as follows (only the relevant portion of the Notification is reproduced) :--'In supersession of earlier notification Nos. SYN.4.ORD.80/83 dated 22-9-1983, 27-4-1984 and 16-10-1984 and in exercise of the powers conferred on it under S. 38 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, the Syndicate of the Bangalore University at its meeting held on 25-7-1985 has been pleased to make amendment, to the Ordinances published in earlier notification cited above. With the amendments to the said ordinances the following shall be the Ordinances regarding revaluation (review) of Answer Scripts:-- XXX XXX XXX 7. No revised rank will be declared in respect of those who ge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »