Karnataka Court September 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shankarappa Veerabasappa Bannihatti Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2780; 1994(1)KarLJ293
ORDERVasanthakumar, J. 1. The petitioner has sought for declaration of acquisition proceedings initiated under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act No. 18/73 hereinafter called as the Act) vide Notification No.LAQ 11/RS/OR. 19/82-83 dated 31-1-1983, gazetted on 17-2-1983 and notification issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act vide Notification No.LAQ 11 HSC 19/82-83 dated 29th November 1983 as having lapsed by virtue of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by Act 68/1984 (Karnataka Act 17/1961) and also for quashing of intimation issued by the Tahsildar Hirekerur, vide LAQ HS Kunchur 93-94 dated 18-6-1993.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by Act 68/1984 is applicable to proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites A...
Dada and Co. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3476; 1994(1)KarLJ58
ORDERShivasbankar Bhat, J. 1. Petitioners are Wholesale dealers holding licences under the provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 (referred to as the 'Licence Order'). They challenge Clause 14(d) of the Licensing Order:2. Clause 14 of the Licensing Order reads thus; '14; Power of entry, search and seizure etc: The licensing authority or any other officer of the department of Food and Civil Supplies not below the rank of a Food Inspector authorised by the Director of Food and Civil Supplies or any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or any officer of Revenue Department not below the rank of Revenue inspector within their jurisdiction may with such assistance, if any as he thinks fit and he has reason to believe that there is or has been contravention of the provisions of the order or with a view to securing compliance with the order or to satisfy himself that there is or has been any contravention of the order. (a) require the owner occupi...
Mallangouda Shankaragouda Desai Vs. Dr. Murigeppa Channaveerappa Modi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2690; 1994(1)KarLJ518
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. The first respondent made an application in terms of Section 142 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 84A of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act). The Tahsildar concerned validated the transaction between one Shankarappagouda Basalingappagouda Desai and Subhachandra Mahantappa Modi after levying a penalty of Rs. 1007- . This order is called in question in this proceeding.2. It is contended that under Section 63 of the Bombay Act sale and transfer of an agricultural land to an non-agriculturist is prohibited. The first respondent being a doctor by profession was not an agriculturist and therefore the registered gift deed dated 15-3-1952 is invalid. Any transaction entered into in contravention of the said provisions could be validated by resort to Section 84A of the Bombay Act. It is stated that application for validation of the transaction in this ...
Kodava Samaj Vs. District Registrar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2715
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. At the time of issuing Rule, an order was made that the Writ Petition would be heard on 31.8.93. However, there is no acknowledgment received regarding service of notice on first respondent and consequently I directed the Government Pleader to take notice. The main contest is between the petitioner and the second respondent. 2. The petitioner is a registered Society. It is aggrieved by the direction issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to hold an election within 60 days after calling the General Body Meeting. There is also a direction that the copy of the resolution of the General Body be sent along with the audited report and the list of members of the working committee to the office of the first respondent.3. The impugned order is dated 24.7.93. The said order refers to the three documents : 1) A letter written by Sri P.P. Muthanna on 1.4.93, 2) A notice issued by the first respondent on 24.7.93 and 3) A complaint lodged by 118 members...
Chandrika Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1412; [1994]206ITR272(KAR); [1994]206ITR272(Karn); 1994(38)KarLJ125
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The third respondent is the owner of property bearing No. S-7, 5th Main Road, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property'). She entered into an agreement of sale on 19th Feb., 1988, with the petitioner agreeing to sell the said property for a consideration of Rs. 33 lakhs and received an advance of Rs. 2 lakhs. The balance of sale consideration was to be paid within six months. The petitioner as the intending transferee and the third respondent as intending transferor filed a statement under s. 269UC of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), in Form No. 37-I in regard to the intended transfer. The Appropriate Authority, IT Department, passed an order on 30th May, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order'), under s. 269UD(1) of the Act ordering pre-emptive purchase of the said property.2. The petitioner challenged the impugned order and the constitutional validity of Chapter XX-C of the Act by filing this petition o...
Venugopal Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3603; 1993(3)KarLJ416
ORDERRaveendran, J. 1. The petitioner's father M. Narayanaswamy was the owner of the property bearing Survey No. 18/5 of Diwanara Palya, Mathikere Village, Bangalore North Taluk, presently within the Bangalore City Corporation limits. He let out a portion of the said property measuring of 100 ft. x 150 ft. for the purpose of running a touring cinema to one Syed Noorulla initially in the year 1983, later renewed as per 'Badige Karar' dated 30.3.1987 for a period of three years i.e., from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1990. The said Syed Noorulla continued in possession even after 31.3.1990. He died on 14.11.1990 and respondents 2 to 4 are his legal heirs (two sons and wife). M. Narayanaswamy died on 14.3.1992 and the petitioner is one of his legal heirs. Respondents 2 to 4 claimed that on the death of Syed Noorulla, they became the tenants and they filed a suit on 21.3.1991 in O.S.No. 1824 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore for a permanent injunction restraining M. Naryanaswamy f...
Chandrika Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1993
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Kar)414
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. :The third respondent is the owner of property bearing No. S-7, 5th Main Road, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property'). She entered into an agreement of sale on 19th Feb., 1988, with the petitioner agreeing to sell the said property for a consideration of Rs. 33 lakhs and received an advance of Rs. 2 lakhs. The balance of sale consideration was to be paid within six months. The petitioner as the intending transferee and the third respondent as intending transferor filed a statement under s. 269UC of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), in Form No. 37-I in regard to the intended transfer. The Appropriate Authority, IT Department, passed an order on 30th May, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order'), under s. 269UD(1) of the Act ordering pre-emptive purchase of the said property.2. The petitioner challenged the impugned order and the constitutional validity of Chapter XX-C of the Act by filing this petition o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›