Karnataka Court July 1990 Judgments

Maruthi Financiers and Traders Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1991]72CompCas453(Kar); 1990(2)KarLJ175

Balakrishna, J. 1. The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, is an Act brought into force for banning the promotion or conduct of prize chits and money circulation schemes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto with effect from December 12, 1978. It is an Act enacted by Parliament. Under section 3 of the said Act, no person shall promote or conduct any prize chit or money circulation scheme or enroll himself as a member to any such CHIT or scheme, or participate in it otherwise, or receive or remit any money in pursuance of such chit or scheme. Section 4 of the Act contemplates imposition of penalty for contravening the provisions of section 3 and section 5 deals with penalty for other offences in connection with prize chits or money circulation schemes. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner commenced a scheme called Maruthi Golden Benefit Scheme which was closed in the year 1979. It appears that, at the instance of the members...

Smt. Changamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1991CriLJ315; ILR1990KAR3031; 1991(4)KarLJ577

K.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 15-2-1989 bearing No. CRM/DTN/12/89-90 Annexure-F and also the order dated 26-12-1989 bearing No. HD 976 SST 89 produced as Annexure-A passed by the first respondent. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the order dated 8-2-1990 bearing No. HD 976 SST 89 passed by the State Government confirming the order of detention passed by the second respondent on 15-12-1989. Consequently, she has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of Heabeas Corpus to produce her sons Krishna alias Korangu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner is the mother of Krishna alias Korangu (hereafter Krishna alias Korangu will be referred to as the detenu). The second respondent by the order dated 15-12-1989 - Annexure-F passed an order directing the detention of the detenu under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Karnataka prevention of Dangerous Activities of B...

Mrs. Nandita Menon Vs. P. Anand Menon

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1991)DMC521; ILR1991KAR1603; 1990(3)KarLJ232

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal is by the wife on the question of jurisdiction decided by the Principal Family Court at Bangalore, in a matrimonial matter arising under the Special Marriages Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. We propose to state only those facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal and no more and they are as follows: The respondent before us (husband) presented a petition purportedly under Section 31 of the Act seeking a decree of divorce annulling the marriage between himself and the appellant before us. He stated in his pleadings that the marriage was solemnised at Bombay under the Act. He has specifically pleaded in para-15 of his petition as follows:'The cause of action for the petition arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court on 9-1-1985 or in any event at (east from 20th April 1986 when the opponent left the petitioner.......separation with intent to commit desertion in giving the petitioner adequate grounds and rea...

B.N. Vedanand Vs. the Bangalore Development Authority

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant175; ILR1990KAR2504

ORDER1. The petitioner was the owner of a revenue site measuring 30 feet x 40 feet situated in Sy. No. 15-2 of Yedivur-Nagasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. A large extent of the area was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority including the aforesaid revenue site and possession of the site was taken from the petitioner on 30-11-1965. On the same day, the petitioner gave a representation to the Bangalore Development Authority that he was entitled to a site in lieu of the acquired land. An endorsement was issued in reply to the representation of the petitioner dated 11-11-1976 under Annexure-A signed by the Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority. Bangalore which reads as follows: --'Sub : Allotment of site in lieu of revenue site acquired by the B.D.A. Bangalore. The Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore has acquired your site bearing No... measuring 30' X 40' situated in Sy. No. 15/2 of Yedivur Nagasandra and the possession of the land was taken...

M/S. Konkan Waterways Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant216; ILR1990KAR2631; 1990(2)KarLJ261

ORDER1. The petitioner has invoked a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision/ direction of respondent-2 contained in communication dated 21-2-1983 under Annexure-A. Annexure-A being a direction to the petitioner which reads as follows:--'You are once again informed that you areillegally storing Class B Petroleum in the above vessel and dispensing the same to the fishing boat through Diesel-operated pumps, as you do not hold a proper licence issued under the Petroleum Rules, 1976. This was made clear to your representative who called at this office on 18-9-82. You should therefore desist from using the floating vessel for dispensing HSD to the fishing boats. If you want to store HSD for this purpose you may install proper storage tank(s) near the place connected dispensing pump(s) and take out a licence in the appropriate form under Petroleum Rules, 1976 for which purpose you may send your proposal for approval initially along with Rs. 10-00 (in form of demand draft) in favour of D...

M.P. Ramesh and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1991CriLJ1298; ILR1990KAR3846

ORDER1. This is a petition for bail. The Respondent-State, on being noticed of the petition opposing the grant of prayer, has filed a detailed statement of objections. It has also filed supplement by way of additional statement of objections. 2. The record is perused. The matter is heard. 3. The facts : M. P. Ramesh (petitioner No. 1), M. S. Prakash (petitioner No. 2), and Yogesha (petitioner No. 3) are arraigned as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in two cases registered in Crimes Nos. 893/89 and 894/89 in the Police Station at Upparpet, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 427 and 307 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Petitioner No. 1 is the younger brother of one M. P. Jayaraj, arraigned as accused No. 17 in the cases. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are full brothers. They are the sons of the sister of the said M. P. Jayaraj. There is a recreation club called 'Padma Recreat...

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Master Krishna Kumar

Court: Karnataka

M. Rama Jois, J. 1. In this reference made under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the questions of law referred for our opinion read :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only 50% of the estate passed on the death of the deceased ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the act of adoption did not amount to a disposition under Section 2(15) read with Section 9 of the Estate Duty Act ?' 2. The brief facts of the case which have given rise to the above questions are these : Two persons by name Babu Rao and Venkateswara Rao together with their respective wives constituted a Hindu joint family. The two brothers constituted a coparcenary, Babu Rao died in the year 1945 leaving behind him his widow, Ahalya Bai. The other brother, Venkateswara Rao, also died in the year 1947 leaving behind him his widow, Kalavathi. On and after the death of Babu Rao and Venkateswara Rao, it appears that the ...

Gururaj H. Naik Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

R.G. Desai, President: (1) The complainant in this case had been allotted a Site bearing No. 38 measuring 30' x 40' situated in Kamakshi Layout by the Respondent on 11.11.1987 for Rs. 17,450/-. The complainant got the Lease-cum-Sale agreement executed at his cost by spending Rs. 2,410/- towards Stamp duty and Registration fees. He was also issued Possession Certificate on 8.9.1988. It was found that the said site was under litigation and it was the subject matter of Writ Petition Nos. 6193/1987 and 6624/1987 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka. As his request for allotment of alternate site was not complied with, the complainant has approached this Commission with this complaint alleging deficiency of services on the part of the BDA. Although detailed written statement was filed by the Respondent, the Respondent has allotted alternate Site No. 5 situated in Ambedkar Layout having the same measurement and at the same rate at which the earlier site had been allotted to him. In vie...

Sri. P.G.C. Chengappa Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant5; 1990(2)KarLJ116

ORDER1. The petitioner is an Advocate practising in this Court. He states that he is interested in the independence of the Judiciary and hence is espousing the cause statedin the petition. He contends that the conditions of service of High Court Judges provide for the privilege of residential accommodation and therefore there is an obligation on the part of the Government to assign or locate certain number of houses for Judges and they should not be driven to approach the Executive to secure accommodation thus preventing any erosion to their sense of independence and seeks for the following reliefs :--'(i) Call for information from the respondent regarding availability of official bungalows belonging to the State Government; (ii) Issue appropriate directions to identify suitable bungalows for the exclusive use and occupation of the High Court Judges and place such bungalows at the disposal of the High Court of Karnataka for allotment as official residence to the Judges who are in need ...

Ramachandrappa Erappa Kakkayanavar Vs. Civil Rights Enforcement Cell

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR2426; 1990(2)KarLJ156

Mohan, C.J.1. This is rather a strange course adopted by the appellant without impleading the necessary party. The matter has been allowed to go on merrily, as a result of which, inspite of adverse order against Writ Petitioner, this appeal is before us and it is sought to be continued in the same fashion.2. The narration of the facts will disclose what we have in our mind. There was a dispute between the appellant and one Smt. Annapurna Hongal as to whether the said Smt. Annapurna Hongal belongs to Scheduled Caste while the appellant claimed that he belonged to Scheduled Caste. It is on the basis of the caste, the dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation - the second respondent was - to be conferred. In order to have this dispute settled the appellant herein filed a suit in O.S.No. 646/1984 before the learned Munsiff, Belgaum. To that suit, Smt. Annapurna Hongal and Indian Oil Corporation were defendants. The trial Court was of the view that Smt. Annapurna Hongal did belong to Schedul...