Karnataka Court September 1993 Judgments
K. Veeresh Babu and Etc. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant56; ILR1993KAR2939; 1993(4)KarLJ769
ORDER1. Reliefs sought for by each of the petitipetitioners in the following writ petitions are as detailed below.W.P. No. 17519/89(a) Writ in the nature of certiorari declaring that the impugned Rule 230 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules based on Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and final pronouncement or paper notification by respondent No. 4 as null and void and ultra vires the Constitution or any other direction.W.P.17997/89(a) To strike down Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as unconstitutional and the notification given under Annexure-A be quashed by a writ of certiorari and for such other writ or order or direction.W.P. 18344/89(a) Declare the provisions of Section 129 of the Act and the Rule 230 of the Rules, as ultra vires of the Constitution.(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of a writ not to enforce the provision of Section 129 and Rule 230 against the petitioners or others who drive or ride the motor cycle.W.P. 24862/9...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamma Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3510; 1993(4)KarLJ252
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the first respondent-Bank (referred as 'the Bank' hereinafter) in levying interest on the deferred interest. The petitioners are borrowers from the Bank. They availed of the loan facility provided for the development of rubber. According to them the Rubber Board launched a scheme known as Rubber Plantation Development Scheme, in order to increase the production of natural rubber in India by accelerating new plantations on modern scientific lines. This Scheme envisages concession in the matter of interest and levy of interest. In fact the Rules for the period 1985-89 provide for the payment of the loanee's share of interest from the 8th year of planting and the principal sum was to be paid from the 10th year of planting. These petitioners obtained various loans and the figures indicate that these are ail small amounts ranging between Rs. 3,700/- and Rs. 37,000/-. They entered into Agreements with the Banks in t...
Tag this Judgment!Baba Associates Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR28
S.B. Majmudar, C.J. 1. The petitioner, M/s. Baba Associates, has challenged the order dated November 30, 1990, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, under section 22(6-A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). By the said order, the Tribunal has rectified its earlier decision rendered on October 4, 1985, in S.T.A. No. 1340 of 1983. The petitioner has contended that the said rectification proceeding is barred by time and is without jurisdiction. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to state briefly, the facts of the case : The relevant period of assessment is December 1, 1978 to June 29, 1979, being a part of assessment year 1978-79. The assessee is the manufacturer and seller of Indian-made foreign liquor. For the relevant period, the petitioner filed a revised return declaring a gross turnover of Rs. 3,22,417.77. The petitioner contended that a sum of Rs. 1,92,110.78 representing excise duty paid by the purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjappa Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3531
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. Since the facts are similar and the points to be considered being common, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The point for consideration in these Writ Petitions is, whether claim for seniority or certain monetary benefits will accrue to an employee from the date of actual regularisation or from the date of initial appointment when such appointment is a temporary one and later regularised? 3. A few facts of the case as stated by the learned Counsel for the parties, are adverted to hereunder:-a) Petitioners are all employees of respondents Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, which is a State Undertaking. They were all initially appointed on temporary basis as Clerks and later they were regularised. Their details are as under:- Name ofthe petitioner & W.P. NoDate of appointmentDate of 180 days completionDate of regularization.K.K.Nanjappa W.P.28268/9317/3/197616/9/197608/9/1978RahamathunnisaW.P.28991/9314/7/197613/1/197711/3...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant77; ILR1993KAR3323; 1993(4)KarLJ290
ORDER1. Basically, the cancellations of contracts subject to continuing certain works are challenged in these writ petitions. By an executive order government resolved to build 1,75,000 houses in rural areas of the State and 30,000 houses in urban areas; in addition 30,000 houses were to be put up in Bangalore urban area. This scheme is referred to as 'Ashraya Scheme', under the order dated 4-11-1991. Houses were also to be constructed under another scheme referred to as 'Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Centenary Celebrations Memorial Scheme'. The Government entrusted the responsibility of constructing these houses with the Karnataka Housing Board (referred to as 'the Board'). These houses were to be allotted to those belonging to economically weaker sections; the houses were to cost Rs. 15,000/- each in rural areas and Rs. 16,000/- in urban areas. In response to the Board's invitation, 265 applicants were received from the contractors; out of them 13 persons were selected. Petitioner in WP No. 108...
Tag this Judgment!Maj. Gen. M.K. Paul Vs. Bangalore City Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2792; 1994(2)KarLJ158
ORDERShivaprakash, J. 1. The Supreme Court in B.K.SRINIVASAN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., : [1987]1SCR1054 , ILR 1987 KAR 1867 bemoans the fate that has overtaken this once beautiful City in the opening paragraph of its Judgment in the following words;'Bangalore was a beautiful city once. It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous flowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was before the invasion of concrete and steel, of soot and smoke, of high-rise and the fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are the avenues, gone are the spaces. We are now greeted with tall puffing chimneys and monstrous high-rise buildings, both designed to hurt the eye, the environment and the man. But they are thought by many as symbols of progress and modernity. They have come to stay. Perhaps they are necessary. Nostalgic sentiments, we suppose, must yield to modern societal requirements. Smoking Chimneys produce much needed goods. Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Mme. Devika Rani Roerich Vs. K.T. Plantations Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR103
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J1. In this Writ Petition a simple question seems to have been blown out of proportion, to be in proportion to the the subject matter of the sale deed. The petitioners seek to restrain the second respondent from proceeding with an appeal filed before him by the first respondent, apparently under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Act' for short). The petitioners also seek the quashing of an order made by the second respondent on 25.5.1993 whereby the first respondent held that he had competence to entertain and consider the said appeal. Another order sought to be quashed is dated 22.7.1993 (Annex-AC), though the order of the said date states that the second respondent has reserved his orders on l.As.1, 2 and 3 filed before him to be pronounced on 28.7.93. The Writ Petition was presented on 26.7.93 and on 28.7.93 after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent, Rule was issued and an interim order was made staying further...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. T. Ramachandran
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR322(KAR); [1994]206ITR322(Karn)
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. The respondent is an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act ('the Act', for short). For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee had failed to file a return in response to the notice under section 14(2) of the Act, whereupon the Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 16(5) of the Act. In the best judgment assessment, he estimated the net wealth of the assessee at Rs. 3,00,000. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 17(1)(a) of the Act since, according to the assessing authority, the wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by failure on the part of the assessee to file the return. The reassessment completed by the assessing authority was unsuccessfully challenged by the assessee in appeal before the first appellate authority, viz., Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held the reopening of the assessment to be bad in law and cancelled the reassessment. The Tribunal has, inter alia,...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Keshava Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2885; [1994]206ITR463(KAR); [1994]206ITR463(Karn); 1994(1)KarLJ230
S. Venkataraman, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge who has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings started with the issue of preliminary notification dated May, 16/19, 1984, and ending with the declaration dated April 29, 1987, published in the Karnataka Gazette dated September 10, 1987, have lapsed and for issue of a mandamus to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to desist from taking further steps in the acquisition proceedings. 2. It is undisputed that the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), was published on September 10, 1987; that the petitioner/appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 1553 of 1987, challenging the acquisition proceedings; that a stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the final notification has been granted by the High Court in that writ petition and that the stay was in operation from October 7, 1987, to July 24, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ranji Cariappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3321; 1994(1)KarLJ146
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Petitioner challenges the Government Order dated 17.5.1993 purported to have been made under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. The said order reads as follows :'In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 76 of 1976), the Government of Karnataka hereby empowers the Tree Officer with the powers specified in Clause (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of the said section, to the extent specified below, namely - (a) in respect of timber, the quantity not exceeding 3M3; (b) in respect of fuel wood, the quantity not exceeding 10 M3; (c) in respect of both fuel wood and timber the value of which does not exceed Rs. 15,000/-' 2. According to the petitioner, the restriction as to the power of the Tree Officer to compound the offence depending upon the value of the timber is ultra virus the provisions of Section 21 of the said Act.3. Section 21 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »