Karnataka Court June 1990 Judgments
Ramappa Puttappa Gourannawar Vs. Deveerawwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1578; 1990(2)KarLJ454
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the award dated 20th December 1989 passed by the II Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T. Dharwad, in M.V.C. No. 410/1981.2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,000/- as compensation to the petitioner with costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. It has dismissed the petition as against the Insurance Company.3. There was also another petition being M.V.C. No. 257/1981 filed by the mother and the brother of the deceased Channabasappa. In fact M.V.C.No. 257/1981 and M.V.C.No. 410/1981 were filed in time before the same Tribunal. Both the cases ought to have been clubbed together and decided. However, whether it was due to lapse on the part of the office of the Tribunal or wantonly or due to a mistake on the part of the parties, both the cases were not clubbed. M.V.C.No. 257/1981 was separately tried and decided on 15-2-19C8. In that case, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 25,...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rajkumar and Others Vs. Gulbarga University and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Kant320; ILR1990KAR2125
ORDERRama Jois1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the legality of the notification issued by the Gulbarga University established under the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 ('theAct' for short), inviting applications for selection for appointment to 35 teaching posts on the establishment of the University on the ground that out of 35 posts as many as 33 are reserved in favour of persons belonging to backward classes and only two posts are made available for general merit and therefore the reservation was violative of Arts. 14and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts of the case, stated in the petition, are these: The University has various Departments such as Kannada, English, Urdu, Marathi etc. Each of the Departments constitutes a separate and distinct unit consisting of posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in the respective subjects. The seniority of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in each of the Departments is mainta...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Shivagouda Patil Vs. Rent Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR660; 1990(2)KarLJ332
ORDERShyamasundar, J. 1. Although this petition is listed for orders, I propose to dispose it off finally since I have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Joshi for the petitioner and the very vehement arguments of Mr. Sampathkumar on behalf of the contesting-respondent, who happens to be an allottee of a controlled premises. It would appear that the landlord and there is no dispute about it, had along with others applies to the Rent Controller for allotment of the premises to himself inter alia objecting to the allotment to somebody else. The Rent Controller, who disposed off the aforesaid proceedings on 11-5-1988, simply stated he proposed to dispose of the proceedings ex parte and went on to make a short order which reads:2. The above order makes it very obvious the learned Rent Controller has not paid any heed or taken note of the stand-point of either the landlord or the other applicants. I am afraid that this is not the way jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Rent Control Act has go...
Tag this Judgment!Shami and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1018; ILR1990KAR2099
ORDER1. The petitioners are hawkers carrying on the business of hawking since a long time and they are all permanent residents of Bangalore. The petitioners are transacting the said business in public places in the vast space available to them by the side of 5th Main Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, in front of Tribhuvan Theatre and an Ice-Cream Parlour called 'Sukhasagar Ice-Cream Parlour'. They are carrying on the business on the pavements. Hawking has not gone without the notice of either the Corporation of the City of Bangalore or the Police. The grievance of the petitioners is that the police attached to respondent-3 Police Station periodically visit the places of hawking and remove all the articles in the possession of the hawkers and, thereafter, proceed to serve notice on them to appear before the concerned Court of the Magistrate to defend themselves against charges made under section 92(g) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. It is stated that, on account of their helplessness and...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Vasudev Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Kar)44; [1991]191ITR181(KAR); [1991]191ITR181(Karn)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. These are two references under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). 2. The question referred for our opinion in both the references, which is common, is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reassessment could be held to be valid under section 17(1)(b) of the Act, though it was reopened under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act ?' 3. The brief facts of the case, necessary for answering the reference, are these : The assessee is the same in both the references. The assessment years concerned are 1974-75 and 1975-76. During the pendency of these assessment proceedings on February 17, 1976, the Assessing Officer called for a valuation report in respect of a building called 'Harsha Mahal' from the Official Valuer under section 16 of the Wealth-tax Act. However without waiting for the valuation report, the Wealth-tax officer completed the assessment for both the assessment years on April 2, 1976. The wea...
Tag this Judgment!K. Aswathanarayana Setty Vs. Hindustan Finance Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2415
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the Order dated 21st September 1982 passed by the learned XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in Execution Case No. 191 of 1982. The learned single Judge has, by the order dated 12th October 1988, referred the case to a Division Bench on the ground that a Decision of this Court in BASAPPA v. DODDAMANI BASAVARAJAPPA : ILR1985KAR2420 has not fully considered the Decision of the Supreme Court in MAHADEO PRASAD SINGH v. RAM LOCHAN : [1981]1SCR732 and has not taken into consideration the cumulative effect of Sections 7, 39(3), 42 Order 21 Rule 82 and also Order 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Before we consider the contentions urged by Sri Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, we notice the undisputed facts of the case:The respondent obtained a money decree in S.C. No. 7570 of 1980 (Old No. 810 of 1979) from the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City on 25th August, 1981 for a sum of Rs. 8,202.50...
Tag this Judgment!Asad Jangu Sheik Vs. Transport Corporation of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2421; 1990(2)KarLJ485
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1. In this Revision Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the III Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, directing the petitioner to furnish the names and addresses of two daughters of the deceased respondent so as to bring them on record as legal representatives of deceased first respondent in Regular Appeal No. 70/1982. The respondent herein is the Appellant in the above referred appeal on the file of the Civil Judge, Belgaum, filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. praying therein to direct the legal representatives of the deceased respondent to give the names of two daughters and their addresses. The respondent while bringing themselves on record as legal representatives of deceased first respondent disclosed that there are two daughters to the deceased respondent, and they are proper and necessary parties, but failed to disclose their names and addresses.2. The petitioner inspite of his best efforts could not get the names and addres...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sreenivasacharlu and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant61; 1990(2)KarLJ125
ORDER1. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite a request in writing made to the Chairman, Land Tribunal, Sandur, dated 28-1-1982 vide Annexure-B supported by a medical certificate of 23-1-1982 seeking an adjournment of the case since the petitioner A. Sreenivasacharlu was suffering from Dirarhoea and unable to go to the office, the Tribunal ignored the application and proceeded to dispose of the case on merits.2. The point for consideration is, whether such an order of the tribunal is opposed to principles of natural justice, particularly since the person concerned cannot be represented by a counsel before the Tribunal and the party had to contend in person. 3. The answer is not difficult to find. I refer to a decision of this Court reported in the case of K. Sathyashankara Shetty v. Mangalore University, ILR 1990 Kant 1064. This Court took the view as under : '27. Administrative Justice contemplates certain requirements to be fulfilled if the hearing is to be regarded as fai...
Tag this Judgment!W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. the Inspector of Factorie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR542]; 1990(2)KarLJ186; (1991)IILLJ480Kant
1. In this batch of cases the petitioners have called in question the constitutional validity of Section 2(n) as amended by Act 20 of 1987 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. They have also contended that the endorsements issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers calling upon the petitioners to file an application for renewal of registration or licence of their respective factories by nominating the director as the 'occupier'. 2. The petitioners are all running factories of various kinds and are seeking either registration or renewal of their factories' licence. When they filed applications in the necessary forms the same having not been acted upon but the petitioners have been asked to file applications signed by the 'director of company who owns the factory.' It is also stated that the authority cannot act upon the Board resolution authorising the general manager to be the 'occupier...
Tag this Judgment!N.G. Purushottam Vs. Government of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC227(Kar)
1. The petitioner seeks a declaration that entry 5(e)(ii) of the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the KST Act', for short) as amended by Karnataka Act of 23 of 1983 as unconstitutional, as offending articles 14, 286 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India; consequently, the levy of tax under entry 5(e)(ii) of the said Fourth Schedule, on coconuts is sought to be quashed. 2. The petitioner is a wholesale dealer in coconut. Coconut is a 'declared goods', declared to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the CST Act', for short). Section 15 of the CST Act imposes certain restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State. By Karnataka Act 23 of 1983, tax is levied on sale, as well as purchase of coconuts in the State of Karnataka, which according to the petitioner is constitutionally impermissible. It is asserted that, under the KST Act, tax was l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »