Karnataka Court March 1990 Judgments

Vishwa Bharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Bangalore ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR1479; 1990(1)KarLJ392

ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, arguments were heard.2. Following are the facts of this case:The petitioner along with All Karnataka Young Writers' and Artists Association, Bangalore, preferred an application under Section 32(2) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 5-2-1986/10-2-1986 to the Bangalore Development Authority requesting for approval for the formation of residential layout in accordance with the layout plan submitted in S.Nos.26, 28, 29 and 30 of Avalahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The application was made in the capacity of owners of the said lands.3. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore, in his communication to the Secretary of the All Karnataka Young Writers and Artists Association, Bangalore, dated 11-4-1986 (Annexure-C) rejected the application for the various reasons set out in the said communication. The petitioner is aggriev...

Arokiamary Vs. Sampammal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1991)DMC162; ILR1990KAR3917; 1990(2)KarLJ379

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The respondents, though served, remained absent and unrepresented.2. As this petition can be disposed of on a short ground, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.3. This Civil Revision is preferred against the order dated 18-1-1989 passed in P & Sc. No. 10031/1981 by the learned XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. By the said order, the learned Judge has transferred the P & Sc. petition to the Family Court.4. The petitioners filed P & Sc. No. 10031/1981 in the Court below for grant of a Succession Certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased Chinnappa under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. In that proceeding, the respondents filed an application on 9-9-88 under Section 151 of the C.P. Code for converting the P & Sc. case into an Original Suit on the ground that respondents 2 to 5 are the children of late Chinnappa. Thus they contested the case of the petitioners, that they are the only heirs of deceased Chinnappa.5. When t...

Bhakthavatsalam and Others Vs. the Assistant Regional Transport Office ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1990Kant297; 1990(1)KarLJ363

ORDER1. In these petitions the petitioners are calling in question certain orders made by the respondent rejecting to reduce the seating capacity of their respective vehicles. Originally the vehicles in question had the seating capacity of 8 + 1 or 10 + 1. They have sought for all India Tourist permits with a seating capacity of 6 + 1, while the Karnataka State Transport Authority granted such permit limiting the seating capacity to 5 + 1. Thereafter the petitioners applied for reduction of the seating capacity of each one of their vehicles to 5+ 1 and for conversion of their vehicle, which was described as Omnibus into a motor cab. The registering authority rejected such application on the ground that the same does not comply with Rule 151 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The other reasons that have been set forth in some of the orders do not really matter much. Therefore, it is unnecessary to refer to those reasons.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner tha...

Sirigeri Kanakappa Shetty and Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1990]185ITR394(KAR); [1990]185ITR394(Karn)

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter coming up for orders after notice is disposed of by the following order : The short question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in his application made under sub-section (3) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has remained without disposal, disposed of by writ of mandanus by this court. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows : On June 30, 1986, the petitioner made an application seeking extension of time to file the return for the assessment year 1986-87. Subsequently, on June 31, 1986, he made yet another application seeking further extension of time for filing the return for the same assessment year and that was disposed of and time was granted till December 31, 1986, for the assessee to file the return. It is also not disputed that within the extended time, he did not file the return but actually filed the return on July ...

Eyelite Optical Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1991LC295(Karnataka); 1990(50)ELT3(Kar)

ORDER1. This petition is filed by a company which claims to be a manufacturer of spectacle frames made of plastic material - cellulose acetate sheets. It further claims that the goods manufactured by the petitioner fall under Tariff sub-heading 9003.11 of Chapter 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and chargeable to on duty. Admittedly, for a number of years, to petitioner was carrying on the manufacturing activity without obtaining licence in terms of Section 6 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. He has averred that all attempts made by the Department to make him take out a licence had met with no success. However, a notice dated 1-2-1988 came to issued as at Annexure-V to the writ petition by which he was called upon to show cause to the Assistant Collector of the Central Excises, Rajajinagar Division, Bangalore, as to why he should not be proceeded against for violation of Rule 173(Q) and Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules among other things. He was given 30 days time to file his ...

Sudharshan and Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR924

ORDERK.B. Navadgi, J.1. These revision petitions are under section 13(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). Since, the parties in both the matters are the same and the question to be determined is the same, these revision petitions are disposed of by this common order. The original order shall be kept in the record of Criminal Revision Petition No. 301 of 1989 and the attested copy thereof shall be retained in the record of Criminal Revision Petition No. 283 of 1989. 2. The record of Criminal Revision Petition No. 301 of 1989 and the record and proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. 4 of 1989 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siddapur, District Uttara Kannada, and the record in Criminal Revision Petition No. 283 of 1989 and the record and proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. 3 of 1989 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siddapur, District Uttara Kannada, are examined and perused. 3. The learned counsel representing the petitioners in both th...

Narayana Rao Pawar Vs. Arasoji Rao's Charities

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR1490

ORDERHakeem, J. 1. The only contention raised by Sri. Shivaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that 'The Repealing and Amending Act, 1988' (Act No. 19 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the Repealing Act) has the effect of taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant permission to sue under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the repealing of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) by the Repealing Act has the effect of nullifying the amendments incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Parent Act).2. By the Amendment Act, certain sub-sections and words were inserted or substituted and some provisions were omitted in the Parent Act. These insertions, substitutions and omissions, after incorporation, thus became part of the Parent Act. Thereafter, the Act has to...

S. Venkatesh Murthy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1991)ACC597

M.P. Chandrakantharaj, J.1. This appears to be a public interest litigation. Petitioner is one S. Venkatesha Murthy. He has described himself as a social worker aged about 29 years. He has made a plea in this Petition for financial assistance to the residents of Challaghatta village situated on the North-western outskirts of Bangalore Air Port of Hindustan Aeronautical Limited. He has arrayed as many as six respondents who include the Union of India, the Director General of Civil Aviation (Inquiry), the Managing Director, National Airport Authority, Managing Director, Indian Airlines and Air India, Managing Director, Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and the Director, Bangalore Air Port, Vimanapura.2. It is alleged by him that on 14-2-1990, an unfortunate Air-bus A-320 crashed while about to land at Bangalore Air-Port in which as many as 85 people perished. The villagers of Challaghatta rushed to the spot and aided and assisted the fire-fighting forces of the Bangalore Air-Port as well as...

B.V. Khatawate Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Telegraphs

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

R.G. Desai, President: (1) The Complainant is working as Income Tax and Sales Tax Consultant at Gadag. On 14.8.1987 he applied for a Telephone connection to his office at Gadag to the S.D.O.T., Gadag. In this application he had stated that he did not want STD barring. But on 22.2.1989 he gave an application to the office of the S.D.O.T., Gadag, requesting for barring the STD facility to the Telephone to be installed in his office. It is admitted by Mr. C. Prakash, learned Advocate for the Respondent that the acknowledgement produced by the Complainant bears the initials of the official then working in the office of the S.D.O.T., Gadag. On 27.3.1989 Telephone Number 7583 was installed in the office of the Complainant. A bill for Rs. 2,260/was issued to the complainant on 1.6.1989 which included the rent from 27.5.1989 to 31.8.1989 and charges for calls made from 27.3.1989 to 15.5.1989 and Trunk-call charges of Rs. 116/-. On a complaint by the Complainant, the Divisional officer. Telecom...

B.i. Tarali Vs. Kenya Ravindranathshetty and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant19; ILR1990KAR1114; 1990(1)KarLJ367

ORDERK. A. Swami, J. 1. At the stage of preliminary hearing, respondent-1 has entered caveat and Sri Chandrasekharaiah, learned Government Advocate has been directed to take notice for respondents 2 and 3. Thus all the respondents are represented. 2. As this Writ Appeal can be disposed of on a short ground, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 3. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 22nd February 1990 passed in W.P. No. 1894/1990. The appeal is preferred by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. He was one of the trustees of the Board of Trustees of Kukke Subramanya Swamy Temple, Sullia. The term of the Board of Trustees expired on 3-1-1990. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : a) quash by the issue of writ of certiorari the order No. ADM.8.CR. 172/89-90 dated 23-1-1990 issued by the 1st respondent Annexure-B; b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus declar...