Karnataka Court August 1995 Judgments
Krishnappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR556; 1995(5)KarLJ585
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner is presently working an Adhyaksha of Marikoppam Gram Panchayat, Marikoppa. A no confidence motion appears to have been moved against him before the Assistant Commissioner, who has, in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, issued a notice convening the meeting of the Panchayat for 26th August 1995 for considering the said motion.2. Aggrieved of the said notice, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to contend that since the post of Adhyaksha had been reserved for a S.C. candidate and since the petitioner was the only Scheduled Caste candidate out of the members of the panchayat, a non-confidence motion was not permissible in law against him nor could the same be taken up for discussion in the meeting proposed to be held under the impugned notice.3. I have heard Sri B. Rudragowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who argued that...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Manikchand Shah and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant386
ORDER1. In this batch of writ petitions,the common question of law involved is as to whether any person, not being a dealer in any goods, causing an entry of any motor vehicle into any local area for Us use therein, is liable to levy of tax under Section 4B of the Karnataka Tax of Entry of Goods Act 1979 (for short, the Act).2. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the motor vehicles of various makes at places outside the State of Karnataka for various reasons. After so purchasing they brought the vehicles in the State of Karnataka for their personal use. Petitioners have specifically averred that they do not carry on any business in any goods and as such are not dealers in any goods. Their complaint is that their application for registration of the said vehicles filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not being entertained by the respectiveTransport Officers on the ground that unless they pay entry tax on the import of vehicles, the same can neither b...
Tag this Judgment!Sajid Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1465; ILR1996KAR38; 1996(5)KarLJ781
Mirdhe, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant who was the accused No. 1 in the trial Court against the Judgment dt. 31st January, 1994, passed by the XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Banglore City, Banglore, convicting the appellant of the offence punishable under S. 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to R.I. for life. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused Sri. Hashmath Pasha and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor Sri. A. B. Patil for the respondent/State and perused the records of the case fully. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Mohsina Taj was the legally wedded wife of the appellant and the PW-9 the mother of the deceased had given one suit, one gold ring, wrist watch and Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant prior to the marriage and after marriage the appellant and his wife Mohsina Taj lived happily for one year. Mohsina Taj complained to her mother and PW-14 her brother about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Manikchand Shah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3080; 1996(41)KarLJ137
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. In this batch, of writ petitions, the common question of law involved is as to whether any person, not being a dealer in any goods, causing an entry of any motor vehicle into any local area for its use therein, is liable to levy of tax under section 4B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the motor vehicles of various makes at places outside the State of Karnataka for various reasons. After so purchasing they brought the vehicles in the State of Karnataka for their personal use. Petitioners have specifically averred that they do not carry on any business in any goods and as such are not dealers in any goods. Their complaint is that their application for registration of the said vehicles filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not being entertained by the respective Transport Officers on the ground that unless they pay entry tax on the import of vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!J. Alexander, I.A.S., Major Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ592; ILR1995KAR2578; 1995(4)KarLJ227
Rajendra Babu, J.1. This petition is directed against an order made by the learned Special Judge functioning under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 17-6-1993 by which he allowed the Karnataka Lokayukta to continue the investigation into the offence against the petitioner in accordance with Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and to take all possible steps in consequence thereof, in accordance with law. 2. The brief facts leading to this case are that on 22-6-1990 the Lokayukta police registered a case in LAC (Crime) No. 14/1990 for the offences arising under sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and filed a 'B' report in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 169, Cr.P.C. on 30-11-1991. The said 'B' report was accepted by an order made on 11-12-1991 by the learned Special Judge, as provided under section 173(4), Cr.P.C. An application was filed under section 178, Cr.P.C. on 7-6-1993 to recall the order dated 11-12-1991 and seeking ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vinayaka Agency and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2853
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration from this Court to the effect that the instruction/clarification issued by the Commissioner under annexure A and the Notification No. S.O. 1707, dated November 25, 1989 (annexure B), are contrary to the provisions of sections 5(1-A), 3A and 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act', hereinafter) and are as such ultra vires their powers and cannot be enforced. 2. The petitioners are wholesale dealers in Indian manufactured liquor such as whisky, rum, etc. They are registered dealers under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners purchase the liquor from the manufacturers and the Mysore Sales International Limited, Bangalore (in short, 'MSIL') and sells it to the retail dealers in liquor. MSIL holds a distributor licence under the Karnataka Excise (Sales of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968. 3. The levy of tax on alcoholic liquors for human consumption, in contradis...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mustapha Kamal Pasha and Another Vs. Dr. H.A. Ramachandra Gowda a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant91; ILR1995KAR3122; 1995(4)KarLJ508
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.In this revision petition, the petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the trial Court have challenged the order passed by the III Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore City, on 20-7-1994 in O.S. No. 10625 of 1987 rejecting I. A. No. 5 filed by them under O.9, R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A few facts which are necessary to be noted are: The plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents who are the defendants in the suit. When the plaint was presented first, the plaintiffs made only the 1st defendant as party to the suit. Since the plaintiffs did not take steps for issue of summons to the 1st defendant, the suit was dismissed for default on 20-7-1990 as against the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs filed the application I.A. No. 5 under O.9, R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 2-9-1991 praying the Court to set aside the order of dismissal of the suit against the 1st defendant and to permit them to take summons...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanachandra Kuloor Vs. Seethu Hengsu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2823; 1995(4)KarLJ156
ORDERVishwanath, J.1. Heard the teamed Counsel for the parties.2. In this Revision Petition the order dated 28.11.1992 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Buntwal, on I.A.No. XVII in O.S.No. 146 of 1980 has been challenged. The learned Munsiff observing that the suit should be stayed till the disposal of C.P.No. 3073 of 1991 involving tenancy in respect of Survey No. 59/11 of Sangabettu Village by this Court allowed the application, i.e., I.A.No. XVII, filed under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and stayed further proceedings in the suit pending disposal of the Civil Petition.3. The facts are: Original Suit No. 146 of 1980 has been filed by Jwalini Amma and others against the respondent/Defendant No. 1 and others for permanent injunction in respect of various lands. So far as Survey Nos. 59/11 and 6A are concerned the plaintiffs have sought mandatory injunction to restore the channel existed in those survey numbers to its original condition on the ground that it has been spo...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishna Devaraya and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant189; ILR1995KAR2845; 1996(5)KarLJ597
ORDER1. The question that precisely falls for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners being pay-phone licensees are required to collect service tax and pay the same to the credit of the Central Government under and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1894 (1994) (hereinafter 'the Act'); and if they are so required, whether the service tax so collected has to be deposited with the respondent-telephone authorities or to be deposited under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (in short, the Rules).2. Admittedly the writ petitioners are licensees of pay-phone i.e. STD/PCO. Such licences arc granted under Section 4 of the Indian Telephones Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Telephones Act') to instal, maintain and operate telephones within the agreed locations. Under the terms of the licence the licensor has been authorised to collect from the callers the charges at the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Palaksha and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant209; ILR1996KAR1582; 1996(2)KarLJ256
ORDER1. The petitioners in ah these writ petitions are transport operators who have a common grievance to make. They contend that Police Officers who are checking their vehicles and demanding production of documents for commission of offences under the Motor Vehicles Act are not competent to do so nor do they check reports issued by them furnish a sound basis to the authorities for initiating any legal proceedings against them. They question the validity of the check reports and seek a writ of certiorari quashing the same besides a declaration to the effect that with the amendment of Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Police Officers have ceased to have any power to check the vehicles in question or take any legal action or proceedings against the transport operators.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioners are entirely banking upon amendment to Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 in support of their case that the Police Officers have ceased to h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »