Karnataka Court January 1994 Judgments
Survodaya Mills Workers Union Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant256; ILR1994KAR687
ORDER1. The petition was listed in the preliminary hearing Group 'B'. By consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard on merits and disposed offinally.This petition is presented by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 31-5-1993 passed by the first respondent in Order No. HUD 109 CUP 92 (Annexure-S) on the ground that the same is illegal and without the authority of law having been made in violation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), besides being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner has further sought for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take action under Section 20(2) of the Act by taking over the entire land in Sy. Nos. 97/2 and 98 of Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore on the ground that the land in question is in excess of the ceiling limit and for a further direction to 6th respondent to retain the entire land for the company for its expansion...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. R. Varadaraju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)319; 1995CriLJ1429; ILR1994KAR635; 1994(2)KarLJ40
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of the trial Court under which on a charge under Section 302, IPC, the trial Court found the accused-respondent guilty under Section 304, Part-I, IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and giving set off of the period of detention already undergone under Section 428, Cr.P.C. directed him to serve the remaining sentence. As the appeals arise out of judgment of the trial Court finding the accused guilty for causing the death of his wife Bhagyalaxmi alias Bhagyamma on 27-3-1987 between 1.30 and 2 p.m. in his house at Bangalore by assaulting her with a carpenter's chisel, both the appeals could be brought under a narrow compass. The prosecution case is that the deceased had adulterous connection with one Bhaktavatsala and this serving as a motive, on the afternoon of this incident, the accused came to his house when his two children were out, bolted the door from inside and then assaulted her to death by inflictin...
Tag this Judgment!Mithilabai Vs. K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR470
ORDERS.B. Majumudar, C.J.,1. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the office has wrongly demanded Court fee of Rs. 400/- from the appellants. This Appeal arises out of a common Order in the Writ Petitions by which interim relief was not granted to the petitioners. It is submitted placing reliance on a Decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22nd July 1986 in Writ Appeals Nos.1877 to 1887 of 1986 that the appellants have got a common grievance against a common ad interim order and therefore it is unnecessary to file separate Appeals by paying separate Court fee.2. In our view, this Decision is rendered per incuriam for the simple reason that Rule 7 of the Writ Proceedings Rules 1977 read with Rule 36 thereof has not been noticed by the Division Bench. The said Rules 7 and 36 of the said Rules read as follows:-'7. PROCEDURE FOR FILING COMMON OR JOINT PETITIONS: (1) Several persons having similar but separate and distinct interest in the subject matter of controversy...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Bharamappa Madar Vs. Basavanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR804; 1994(2)KarLJ116
ORDERRajendra Babu, J 1. This Petition is directed against an order made by the Land Tribunal, declaring Respondent No,1 as the tenant in respect of land comprised in Sy.No. 37 on the Western side measuring about 1 acre 20 guntas in Aladakati village in Hirekerur Taluk. That order arose out of Form No. 7 filed by Respondent No. 1 in terms of Section - 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). On an earlier occasion the Tribunal had held that the first respondent was not a tenant in respect of the land in question, by its order dated 23.5.1977, against which a Writ Petition was filed before this Court and this Court by an order made on 29.6.1983 quashed that order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Since the Tribunal had relied upon a document 'Agauva Lavani Patra' to hold that Respondent No. 1 is not a tenant, it was asked to decide the rights arising under the said document, in favour of Respondent No. 1, and whether he would be a tenant a...
Tag this Judgment!Puttaswamy Gouda Vs. Rangappa Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC676; 1994ACJ1061; ILR1994KAR1032; 1994(2)KarLJ453
M. Ramakrishna, J1. This Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award made in M.V.C.No. 181/1986 disposed of on 15th April 1989 by the Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T. II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, by which the learned Member of the Tribunal awarded, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as the compensation payable under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The appellant has taken a number of grounds to assail the conclusion of the Tribunal, the main grounds of them being (1) rejection of the claims of wife and mother, who died during the pendency of the petition, of the deceased Ramegowda, on the ground that the petition did not survive on their death, they being only L.Rs and dependants of the deceased, was wrong and (2) the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant being not the dependant of the deceased was not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency, was also unsustainable.3. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. G. Kalamani Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests in Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant211; ILR1994KAR951; 1994(2)KarLJ418
ORDER1. In these two petitions the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are almost identical viz., to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to insist on any transit permit for transporting forest produce like seegekayi, soapnut (antiwala) on the ground that they are not of forest produce. There is no prohibition to transmit the same, and the petitioner is transporting the same after purchasing from the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, he is not transporting from any forest.2. In order to know whether the; transitpermit is required in -respect of seegekayi,soapnut (antiwala), it is proper to, know thefollowing provisions.3. Sub-section(7) of S. 2 of the Karnataka Forest Act of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines what is market produce. According to the said sub-section the forest produce includes:--(a) the following whether found in or brought from a forest or not, that is to say :-- 'Timber, charcoal, caoutchouse, catechu (sandalwood) ilotikai (c...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Jaishree Industries and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant315; ILR1994KAR778; 1994(1)KarLJ482
ORDERShivashankar Baht J. 1. Thefirst defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The parties are referred to with reference to their rankings in the trial Court hereafter.2. The plaintiff sued defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,19,000/- being the value of the draft for Rs. 2,51,125/- and certain interest thereon. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is a partnership firm. The business of the plaintiff was of manufacturing and selling Super Enamelled Aluminium Winding Wires at Ahmed nagar. The plaintiff firm requires aluminium coils for the purpose of its business. The third defendant approached the partners of the plaintiff firm stating that he is a recognised Government auctioneer attached to the Defence Department of Government of India and that third defendant told the said partners that a lot of aluminium coils weighing 24.5 tonnes were available at a floor price of Rs. 10.25 Ps. per Kg. at Bangalore. The third defendant was entitled to brokerage of 10% on entir...
Tag this Judgment!Narayani Rao Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR506
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') to revise the order dated April 29, 1988, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, in S.T.A. No. 985/86. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are the following : One U. R. Venkat Rao, husband of the petitioner, was carrying on business in silica sand. He was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, III Circle, Mangalore. He expired on March 3, 1985. It is thereafter the petitioner came on record as legal representative and the assessment proceedings were continued in her name in respect of the business carried on by her husband. The assessment order relates to the period July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982. While concluding the assessment, the assessing authority allowed exemption in respect of freight charges amounting to Rs. 2,83,004.48 stating that the said amount was collected as freight charge...
Tag this Judgment!Nijalingappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1046; 1995(1)KarLJ547
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. By these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are questioning the Constitutional validity of Karnataka Act 18 of 1990. This Court in YELLAPPA ADIVAPPA MADIWALAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., made certain observations to the effect that Land Tribunals had not been carrying out the directions issued by this Court in several Writ Petitions in which their orders were challenged and they had not made any efforts to improve their functions in the discharge of their duties for satisfactory adjudication of tenancy rights of poor tenants and in that background recommended to the Government that it will be appropriate to constitute an Appellate Tribunal consisting of two Members one having Judicial experience and the other having experience on the revenue side with power to take additional evidence, if necessary, for rendering substantial Justice to the parties at the District level instead of compelling them to come to this Court where...
Tag this Judgment!P.D. Mistry and Etc. Etc. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Bangalore and An ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1746; ILR1994KAR1324; 1994(1)KarLJ505
ORDER1. The question involved in all these petitions either directly or indirectly have arisen from the applicability or otherwise of the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 (in short the 1989 Order) and the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (District) Order, 1985 (in short the 1985 Order). 1989 Order refers to Bangalore City and the 1985 Order refers to the Districts in the State of Karnataka, But the provisions in both the Orders are almost identical. Hence, without making reference to either Bangalore City or other Districts in the State, these petitions are disposed of by making reference to the Licensing Authority. For Bangalore City the Licensing Authority is the Commissioner of Police and for the District in the State the Licensing Authority is the District Magistrate. 2. The Order in question has been made in exercise of the power conferred under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »