Karnataka Court May 1990 Judgments

V. Laxmaiah Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence, Challa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1990]79STC144(Kar)

S.R. Rajashekara Murthy, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the seizure order made by the respondent in exercise of his power under section 28(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act,1957 ('the Act'). On August 3, 1984, on information that the petitioner was carrying on the business of purchase and sale of cocoanuts at the premises in which he was residing and that he had evaded payment of tax to the Government, the respondent conducted a search of the premises. In the course of the search the respondent came certain books of account and loose slips which are listed in the seizure order (annexure A at SI. Nos. 1 to 6) and on being satisfied that petitioner had attempted to evade payment of tax, seized the books and other documents. This seizure is challenged by the petitioner on several grounds. 2. Sri Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following grounds : That the petitioner is only an agriculturist and he was in his farm house house in R. S....

Dakshayini Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR670

K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 14th December 1979 passed in O.S. No. 879/1977 by the learned VII Additional Civil Judge Bangalore City.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The respondent is the defendant. In this Judgment, the appellants will be referred as the plaintiffs and the respondent as the defendant.3. The suit premises is a Municipal Site bearing No. 25, measuring 350 sq. yards situate on Sree Jayachamarajawadiyar Road, 39th Division, Bangalore City (formerly bearing S.No. 34/9 of Mavalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore and since converted) bounded on the North and East by Smt. Rajamma's property; West by Sree Jayachamarajawadiyar Road, and South by Adagodi Papiah's property; together with the buildings and structures erected thereon for use as a petrol and lubrication service station with drive-ways including footpath cutting and paving situate at J.C. Road in the Registration Sub-District of Bangalor...

T. Venkoba Rao Vs. Vinod Babu

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR2058

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This Writ Petition is before the Division Bench by an order of reference dated 15-12-1989 made by the learned Single Judge in view of the preliminary objection raised before him that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as it was by rival traders.2. The learned Single Judge in his order of reference has stated in detail the cases relied upon by the parties in support of their rival contentions. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable because three of the petitioners were rival cinema theatre owners and as such they could not have locus-stand to prosecute a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. That contention was supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in (1) THE NAGAR RICE AND FLOUR MILLS AND ORS. v. N. TEEKAPPA GOWDA & BROTHERS AND ORS., : [1970]3SCR846 , (2) JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI v. ROSHAN KUMAR, HAJI BASHIR AHMED AND ORS., AIR 1976 SC 578 and (3) the decision of this Court in the case of B.N. SAMPAT...

M.P. Siddananjappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR2116; 1990(2)KarLJ177

ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of termination of his services as Superintendent for Boys Hostel in the Department of Social Welfare of the State Government.2. This matter has been referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the learned Single Judge. On 24th April, 1990 the Government Advocate was directed to take notice and the matter has now come up for preliminary hearing.3. The first question for consideration is about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been enacted by the Parliament pursuant to Article 323-A of the Constitution. Under the said Act, an Administrative Tribunal has been constituted for this State called the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, in view of Clause (d) of Article 323-A of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain Writ Petitions concerning disputes and complaints in service matters ...

K.C. Thimmaiah Vs. M.M. Somaiah

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR3583; 1990(2)KarLJ495

ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Kodagu (respondent-2) at Annexure-E and that of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (respondent-3) at Annexure-H.2. A few facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows: The 1st respondent had approached the then Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka seeking for grant of certain land in his favour on the ground that he had been an Indian Olympic Hockey Player. He had specifically requested for grant of 10 acres of land for Plantation purposes. That application came to be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu, to build up records and to send proposals.2.1. Again, on 14-10-1981, another application came to be presented before the then Chief Minister of State of Karnataka. That application again came to be forwarded to the Deputy Commiss...

M/S. Katwe Jaggery Traders, Hubli and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant63; ILR1990KAR1882

ORDER1. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the. parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing.2. Propelled by common cause, the petitioners in these cases being traders in Jaggery have approached this Court for quashing the impugned notifications and the notices. They have also sought for a direction to the respondents to comply with the procedure laid-down under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the purpose of establishing a market and, on establishment of the same, recover the market fee from the date of such establishment.3. The operative portion of the impugned notification dated 15-7-1982 reads thus:-'Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 5 read with S. 4 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (Karnataka Act 27) with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Karnataka Government Gazette, the marketing ...

D. Venkatesha Gowda Vs. State

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR3096; 1990(1)KarLJ242

ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has challenged the legality and correctness of the orders (Annexure-C and D) passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, respondents 3 and 2 respectively. 2. The matter arises in this way: Sy. No. 218 to the extent of 10 acres was a Government land. That land came to be granted in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Chintamani as per Annexure-A. By a perusal of Annexure-A it is seen that the land in question came to be granted for a specific purpose viz., for planting 200 honge and 200 tamarind trees, subject to certain other conditions laid down in the Certificate (Annexure-A). I will refer to the conditions later. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar by an order dated 20-10-1979 (copy not produced), cancelled the grant of the Tahsildar made in favour of the petitioner mainly on the ground that there was breach of the condition of the grant in that the petitio...

Chairman, B.W.S. Vs. Hindustan Dealers Ltd.

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

R.G. Desai, President: (1) After hearing the Counsel for the Parties and perusing the records, the Commission delivered the following: (2) The Appellant was the Respondent and the Respondent herein was the Complainant in Complaint No. 10/1989-90 on the file of the District Forum, Bangalore and they will be hereinafter referred to by their position in the District Forum, Bangalore. (3) The complainant is one of the tenants in Premises No. 9, K.G. Road, Bangalore. Vijaya Bank and Lokkur and Co., are the other two tenants. R.R. No. 23807-GND3-198 is the number of water connection for that premises. The complainant received excess water bills and was protesting against the same and even then no Engineer of the Respondent visited their premises to find out the cause for the excess reading of the meter. Only the Billing Clerk used to visit their premises and change the defective meter. As the complainant did not pay the arrears of Rs. 1,946.40 from 1.1.1989 to 30.9.1989, the water connection...

A. Srinivasamurthy Vs. Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

R.G. Desai, President: (1) The case of the complainant may be briefly stated as follows: - (2) The Complainant lives at No. 27, Block 'A' CIL Layout, Rajmahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore. On 8.11.1989 at about 6.30 p.m. the Complainant and his neighbour Mr. B.K. Raghavan (CW-4) were walking along the D. Rajgopal Road about 200 Mtrs away from the residence of the complainant. At that time the Complainant was bitten by a stray dog. As it was dark, he could not identify or trace the dog to ascertain whether it was a rabid dog or not. After consulting a Doctor the complainant took A.R. Vaccine Injections from 9.11.1989 in the Corporation Maternity Home at Vyalikaval. He completed the full course of 14 painful injections. When he was to take the seventh injection he fell terrible discomfort and so he consulted the Pathologist who prescribed a course of Antibiotics. The incident happened while he was compiling information as a free lance journalist to write an article on rabies. He got anti b...

C.L. Jagannath Vs. the Chairman B.D.a

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

R.G. Desai, President: (1) The complainant had been allotted a site measuring 30'x40' in Kamakshi Layout in 1987. He got the Lease-cum-Sale agreement registered and got the Possession Certificate in July 1988. Subsequently, it was found that the said site was involved in litigation and the complainant could not take up the construction of his house on that site. Hence he has filed his complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the BDA. The BDA immediately after service of notice has considered the case of the complainant and was pleased to allot an alternate site to him at the same rate in HSR Layout. (2) Although the claim of the complainant for alternate site was met by the BDA, the complainant insists that he must be awarded costs of registration, the amount of land tax paid by him and also damages, in all amounting to Rs. 36,119.95. (3) The learned Advocate for the BDA urged that the complainant is not entitled to get any of the amounts claimed by him. So the only poin...