Karnataka Court November 1990 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.
Veerappa Gowda Vs. Hukrappa Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR903; 1990(3)KarLJ399
Mirdhe, J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Judge allowing the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent and quashing the order of the Tahsildar, Sullia Taluk, Sullia, dated 11-2-1982, produced at Annexure-B in the Writ Petition.2. Certain lands belonging to the joint family of the appellant and first respondent Hukrappa Gowda and his brother Boja Gowda, had suffered a decree in Original Suit No. 155 of 1955, filed by Kukkanna Gowda, passed by the Sub-Court, Mangalore. For the purpose of clearing certain debts, including the decretal amount, the appellant herein with his brother and other family members, executed a sale deed on 7-5-1957 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000-00 in favour of Kukkanna Gowda. The sale deed, which is at Annexure-A, inter alia, provided that after a period of five years with effect from 12-4-1962, but within a period of ten years from the date of the said document, the vendors could pay a sum of Rs. 8,000-00 to Kukkanna Gowda and...
Sharifunnisa Vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3008; 1991(1)KarLJ169
ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. in these three Writ Petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Karnataka State Road Transport Appellate Tribunal, allowing the appeal presented by respondent No. 3 in each of these Petitions and granting stage carriage permit, on the ground that the petitioner had not been impleaded as a respondent to the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case, are these: A stage carriage permit on the route Thamballapalli to Chintamani was held to one C. Puttanna Chetty, in the first instance. The said permit had been transferred in favour of Pyarejan Saheb, the husband of the petitioner, by an endorsement dated 25-1-1979. Respondent No. 3 in each of the petitions had filed application for stage carriage permit on a route which overlapped the route in respect of which the husband of the petitioner held a stage carriage permit. The said Pyarejan Saheb filed objections to the applications. During the pendency of the applications before the State Transport Author...
Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. Yeshodamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1887; 1991(4)KarLJ647
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. This is defendant's first Appeal. Suit was for permanent injunction to restrain the Corporation from demolishing any portion of the building constructed by the plaintiff on the suit schedule property on the ground that -(1) He is the owner of premises bearing No. 10, but demolition notice issued to one Sri Ramakrishna who is the owner of premises No. 7 has attached on the property of the plaintiff;(2) An action of demolition cannot be initiated by the Corporation without applying its mind to mandatory requirements of Section 321 of the Bangalore City Corporation Act;(3) Before taking steps of demolition, it has to be proved that there is unauthorised construction;(4) A notice has to be issued calling upon the person to remove such obstruction or unauthorised construction and steps for demolition on refusal to remove his part.2. As such mandatory requirements were not complied with by the Corporation before attempting to demolish some portion of the building, t...
Union of India Vs. Rollatainers Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC321; 1991LC36(Karnataka); 1991(55)ELT317(Kar); ILR1991KAR555; 1991(1)KarLJ224
1. The Union of India, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, and the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bangalore, have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court (Puttaswamy, J), dated 11th of June, 1984 whereby the learned single Judge quashed the order dated 15-9-1980 calling upon the respondent herein to file a classification list in respect of printed cartons manufactured by it under Tariff Item No. 68 for approval, and the two show cause notices, dated 24-9-1980, Annexures G and H relating to two period calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why it should not be required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,70,638.30 and Rs. 4,13,074.01 being the excise duty recoverable from the respondent under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned single Judge has also issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants to refund the excise duty collected from the respondent on the printed cartons for ...
Kaypee Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: [1992]84STC384(Kar)
S. Mohan, C.J.1. All these writ petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment. 2. The facts in W.P. No. 8533 of 1984 briefly stated are as follows : The petitioners, a registered partnership firm is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of confectionery, sugar-candy and sugar syrup. They have been assessed to sales tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax, Act, 1957, concerning the sale of sugar-candy and sugar syrup. Originally it was thought by the assessing authority that the petitioners would be entitled to the exemption under entry No. 31B of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Accordingly, assessments were passed on 27th July, 1978, granting the benefit of exemption for the assessment year commencing 1st July, 1976 and ending by 30th of June, 1977. However, on 4th August, 1982, finding that it was no longer entitled to exemption, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (1st respondent) issued show cause notice proposing to review the order of t...
District Judge Vs. Ravindra Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR124
Navadgi, J. 1. In this proceeding initiated and commenced against B.H. Ravindra Pai and Abdur Rahim Ahmed, arraigned as A-1 and A-2 respectively, as a result of the Reference made by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short), a charge, was framed against B.H. Ravindra Pai (A-1) and Abdur Rahim Ahmed (A-2), hereinafter referred to as A-1 and A-2 respectively, for having committed the offence of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Both A-1 and A-2 pleaded not guilty to the offence charged and stated that they had defence to make.2. The Complainant, to establish the charge, has not adduced any oral evidence, but he has produced documentary evidence admitted in evidence and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-4 with the consent of A-1 and A-2.3. After the charge was framed and the plea was recorded and after the Complainant closed his side, A-1 filed his affidavit while A-2 submitted that h...
Yellappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2726
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. Heard Sri Umesh R. Malimath, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The order made by this Court on 22-10-1990 is recalled.3. It is not in dispute that the land bearing R.S.No. 172 of Gopanakoppa village, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District, came to be granted in favour of Sri Yellappa, the petitioner herein, by order dated 11-8-1971 made by the competent authority. The said grant is made under the provisions of Rule 102A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1965. For the purpose of convenience the said Rule is extracted here under:Planting of trees by private persons on Governments Lands -(1) The Deputy Commissioner may subject to the following conditions, grant permission to any person to plant and grow trees on lands vesting in the State Government, in any village namely - (i) the grantee and his successor in interest (herein after referred to as 'Hakdar') shall be entitled only to the usufruct of such trees and not to any other right over the trees or lands on w...
Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Muneerappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4179; 1990(2)KarLJ513
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. The lands forming the subject matter, spread over in Survey Nos. 115/7, 115/8, 115/9 and 115/10 as well as Survey Nos. 116/4, 116/5, 116/6 and 116/7 of Bilekahalli village, came to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act No. 1 of 1894) by the State of Karnataka for a public purpose. The beneficiary is the complainant (Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd). These acquisition proceedings were challenged by Muneerappa, the respondent herein, before this Court by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 14940 of 1985. That Writ Petition came to be dismissed along with other petitions which also questioned the validity of the acquisition proceedings on 30-6-1987. Against the said Judgment, W.A.No. 1411 of 1987 was filed. That was also dismissed by this Court on 30-5-1988. The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 1988. The possession of the lands was handed over to the complainant-Society on 1-10-...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Sunder K. Paniyadi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR57]; ILR1990KAR4149; 1991(1)KarLJ30
Mohan, C.J.1. These writ appeals and writ petitions are interconnected. As to what exactly the inter-connection, we will deal with it shortly. We will take up the writ petitions first. 2. The writ petitioners are working as Managers-employees of respondent-1 - Bank (Syndicate Bank) (hereinafter to as the Bank). By order dated April 25, 1990 they were kept under suspension pending enquiry into certain misconduct alleged against them. It is necessary for us to reproduce the relevant portions of the order of suspension : 'Whereas Sri Sunder K. Paniyadi, Employee No. 076467, Manager, Kemmannu Branch, holding outdoor keys/joint custody keys of Kemmannu Branch, is reported to have absented unauthorised this day, i.e., April 25, 1990 from duties and failed to hand over the said keys to the Bank which caused considerable amount of financial loss to the bank besides disrupting normal functioning of the Branch. Further, the said action on his part has also caused inconvenience to the customers o...
Mohan Radio and Electric Works Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]83STC177(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This sales tax appeal is directed against the order dated December 19, 1986, made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore, in the exercise of his suo motu power of revision under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to us 'the Act'). 2. The facts leading to the appeal, may be briefly stated and they are as follows : The appellant is a registered partnership firm and a dealer in electrical goods registered as such under the Act. For the assessment year April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983, he filed return showing total turnover in the sum of Rs. 8,66,113.01 and taxable turnover at Rs. 4,16,319.12. He disclosed the tax collected by him at Rs. 38,024.22. The assessing authority, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Hubli, on verification of the books of accounts by the assessee found certain discrepancies which he listed (five in number) as at annexure C - the Commercial Tax Officer's order anne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »