Karnataka Court June 1990 Judgments

K. Channappa and Others Vs. the Union of India, and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant18; 1990(2)KarLJ172

ORDER1. The point for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in demanding additional security deposit from the petitioners without an opportunity of hearing.2. Rule 445 of the Indian Telegraph Rules provides:-- 'The Telegraph Authority may, at any time, before or during the period for which a telephone or other like service is provided require a subscriber to deposit as security such amount as it may consider necessary and if the subscriber fails to comply with such demand within such period as it may specify, the Telegraph Authority may withdraw the service and remove any telephone or other apparatus belonging to the Telegraph Authority. Where the security deposit is paid, any amount due from the subscriber by way of fee or other charges under these rules may be adjusted against the amount so deposited.'3. It is no doubt true that Rule 445 has the force of law. But the question is whether the Telegraph Authority is justified in enhancing the security deposit and that t...

D. Nagaraju Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant60; 1991(1)KarLJ118

ORDER1. The short point for consideration is whether the order passed under Annexure-O purported to be in exercise of the power conferred on the authority under S. 6(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971, is sustainable and whether the respondents have exercised that power in accordance with law. 2. A reading of Annexure-O simplifies the question for consideration and decision. What emerges from Annexure-O is that on 12-6-1978 a notice under sub-section (1) of S. 4 of the Act was served on the petitioner and in response to the said notice after the petitioner showed the cause, straightway the Estate Officer proceeded to issue the final order under sub-section (1) of S. 6 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to vacate the building within the time limit specified in the said notice and threatening the consequences thereof in the event of non-compliance with the notice. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the c...

Commissioner Vs. Committee Management of the Jeeva Samadhi of Sri Yerr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR2521; 1990(2)KarLJ201

Murlidher Rao, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal against the Judgment and decree of District Judge, Bellary, in O.S.1 of 1975. Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 62 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951, (hereinafter called Act of 1951), in respect of an institution called 'Yerriswami Samadhl' situated in village Chellagurki, Bellary District. Plaintiffs styled themselves as a Committee of Management; admittedly it is not a Committee constituted under any Statute or by any statutory authority. Vital prayers in the suit, which are relevant, are as follows:-'(a) For cancellation of the order of the 1st defendant dated 8-10-1974 and for a declaration that the Jeeva Samadhi of Sri Yerriswami Thata situate at Chellaguriki is not a 'Temple' within the meaning of the Madras Acts of 1927 or 1951 and not subject to the purview of that Act;(b) for an injunction restraining the defendants and their Officers under the H.R. and C.E. Act from in any way ...

Radhu Shedthi Vs. Gopalakrishna Kedlaya

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR1693; 1990(2)KarLJ271

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Revision Petition under Section 121A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) is filed by the petitioner against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dated 10-8-1989 made in Case No.LRA 991 of 1988 in confirming the order of the Land Tribunal, Udupi on the ground that it suffers from illegality and procedural irregularity.2. The petitioner has already been granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands bearing survey Nos.9 and 18/1 in LRY 76-78. He filed another application for grant of dwelling site under Section 38 of the Act. The Land Tribunal after assessing the evidence has ruled that he is not an agricultural laborer, in view of the fact that he has already been granted occupancy rights under Section 48A of the Act. The Land Tribunals, is of the view that agricultural tenant cannot be an agricultural laborer to claim dwelling site. The said order of the Land Tribunal has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority hold...

Prof. H.H. Annaiah Gowda Vs. Chancellor

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR2360

Mohan, C.J.1. The facts leading to this Writ Appeal are to be set out at some length. The appellant is the Professor of English and Head of the Department of English in the University of Mysore. In such capacity he was appointed every year as an Examiner. He was also the Chairman of Board of Examiners for English M.A. examination. The appointment of the Board of Examiners and Chairman is done for each year by the Syndicate under Section 25(2)(c) of the Karnataka State Universities Act (shortly referred to as the Act). For the year 1983, the appellant was appointed as Chairman of Board of Examiners. A complaint was submitted by a member of Syndicate of the Mysore University to the Chancellor stating that a candidate with a Code No. 9664 of M.A. previous Paper III English secured 27 by first valuation by the external examiner and 41 marks by II valuation by the internal examiner one Dr. Shankar. The difference between the above two examiners was only less than 20 marks. Therefore, there ...

Garments International Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Ano ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant52

ORDER1. The petitioners have questioned the legality and propriety of the decision and order contained in Circular No. STT-36(1)/100 dated 6-1-1979, a copy of which is Annexure-B, and have sought for quashing of the same. The petitioners have also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay cash assistance accrued and due to all the petitioners for the periods January to March, 1979.2. The following are the material facts of the case :--The petitioners are manufacturers and exporters of readymade garments. They are members of the Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Council. The Union of India (respondent-1 herein) with the object of promoting export of goods from the country, announced Export Assistance Schemes from time to time. Under these schemes are contemplated replenishment licence and/or cash incentives. These are extended through various Export Promotion Councils and Federations in India. The petitioners are concerned with export of cotton textile and fabrics and the 1s...

Kallappa Shiddappa Jagajampi Vs. Chandrakant Laxman Badave (deceased b ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant311; ILR1990KAR3965; 1990(3)KarLJ540

ORDERSwami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred under S. 115 of the C.P. Code, against the order dated 16-10-1981 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Belgaum in H.R.C. Revision No. 62/1980. That Revision Petition was filed u/S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Judge, Belgaum against the order dated 18-6-1980 passed in H.R.C. No. 3/1979 and the same came to be decided by the Additional District Judge Belgaum. The learned Munsiff allowed the petition and ordered for eviction of the petitioner herein who was the respondent in HRC No. 3/1979. The learned Additional Second District Judge Belgaum, has affirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Munsiff.2. This petition has been referred to a Division Bench on the ground that it involves interpretation and applicability of S. 45 of the Act.3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.4-5. Having...

Broadway Complex Vs. Administrator, Corporation of the City of Bangalo ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1991]188ITR358(KAR); [1991]188ITR358(Karn); 1990(2)KarLJ139

Ramajois, J. 1. These two writ appeals are presented against the order of the learned single judge (See : [1990]183ITR569(KAR) ] dismissing the two writ petitions presented by the appellant (common appellant in both the writ appeals) in which the appellant had challenged the legality of the demand of property tax by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore from the appellant in respect of the properties in which the appellant was only a lessee. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these : The main contention of the petitioner/appellant is that, in respect of the properties in respect of which taxes are demanded from the appellant, he was only a lessee and, therefore, in view of section 112 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act'), the primary liability to pay tax was on the lessor and, therefore, the demand of property tax from the appellant was without authority of law. The above contentions was negatived by the learned judge who dismissed the writ pet...

Broadway Complex Vs. Administrator, Corporation of the City of Bangalo ...

Court: Karnataka

Rama Jois, J.1. These two Writ Appeals are presented against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the two Writ Petitions presented by the Appellant (common Appellant in both the Writ Appeals), in which, the appellant had challenged the legality of the demand of property tax by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, from the Appellant in respect of the properties, in which, the appellant was only a lessee.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these: The main contention of the petitioner/appellant is that, in respect of the properties, in respect of which, taxes are demanded from the appellant, he was only a lessee and therefore, in view of Section 112 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act'), the primary liability to pay tax was on the lessor and therefore, the demand of property tax from the appellant was without authority of law. The above contention was negatived by the learned Judge who dismissed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the sai...

K.T.Shivaiah Vs. the Chairman

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

R.G. Desai, President: (1) The facts giving raise to this complaint may be briefly stated as follows:- (2) The Bangalore Development Authority (for short the BDA), the Respondent herein formed a layout of residential sites in the scheme called "West of Chord Road II Stage". The plan of the Layout showing therein the formation of sites including the Site No. 669 allotted to the complainant is at Annexure-A produced along with the complaint. Site No. 669 measuring 80' x 120' was allotted to the complainant on 12.8.1970. Due to curvature at the time of handing over possession, the site measuring 80 ft. East to West end 126'9"+ 118'6"/2 North to South was delivered to the complainant on 3.4.1973 excluding the triangular bit of land lying on the western side of Site No. 669 in between the said site and Site No. 670. According to the complainant that was a mistake committed due to the inadvertence of the officials of the B.D.A. The complainant on 4.1.1979 filed a complaint about it to the Re...