Karnataka Court March 1996 Judgments

M. Papa Naik Vs. Commissioner, City Municipal Council

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR1808; 1996(3)KarLJ86

ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. These two Revision Petitions arise out of a common order passed by the District Judge, Chitradurga, in MA Nos. 130/90 and 129/90 directing to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in Which they are residing to the respondents within a period of 45 days.2. The brief facts of the case the petitioners are employees of the City Municipal Council, Davanagere. M. Papa Naik the petitioner in C.R.P. 5483/90 (MA 130/90) was working as a Manager in the Davanagere Municipality and he continued to work in that capacity tilt 14.7.89. By an order dated 6.7.1989 passed by the Director of Municipal Administration, he was sent on deputation to Ramadurg Town Municipality temporarily. Thereafter, again the petitioner was repatriated and posted to the original place of work to work as an Assessing Officer vide Order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the Government. Since the petitioner has been working as an Assessing Officer in Davanagere City Municipal Council. That be...

Smt. B.S. Gowramma Vs. Joint Director of Public Instructions and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3032; 1996(6)KarLJ584

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a hotly contested litigation and one which has a background in so far as it has been preceded by some earlier proceedings which resulted in directions being issued by this Court, to which I shall make a reference. The point involved is one of some consequence in so far as it concerns an issue which is being agitated in this and several other proceedings, viz., the question as to whether in the case of commerce institutes the one kilometre rule is required to be followed or not. There is no dispute about the fact that the relevant rules prescribe that in the case of urban areas a distance of at least one kilometre is required to be maintained between similarly situated institutes. The reason for this is very obvious in so far as the intention is basically to avoid over-crowding and unhealthy competition. When those factors are present, quite apart from interse disputes. The economic and survival of each of the persons running these institutes gets encroa...

State of Karnataka Vs. H.S. Srinivasa Iyengar and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1996(2)ALT(Cri)12; 1996CriLJ3103; ILR1996KAR1602; 1996(2)KarLJ169

1. This is a State Appeal preferred against the judgment in C.C. No. 31/1990 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hassan dated 4-5-1991 acquitting the accused (respondents) of the offences under Ss. 498-A read with S. 34, IPC, 432 r/w, S. 34, 323 r/w S. 34 and 114, IPC. 2. This appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission on 15-3-1996. The complainant, his daughter who is alleged to have been ill-treated and the accused, filed a compromise petition I.A. II in this Court S. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) and prayed for permission to compound the offences. The complainant, who is the father of Nagalakshmi and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present before Court in person and admitted the execution of the compromise petition. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 were not present in person. They appeared through their Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli, who also admitted the execution of the compromise petition. 3. The learned counsel for the resp...

P.V. Sindhur Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Haveri an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1997Kant60; [1996]103STC536(Kar)

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing beedies. They are registered as dealers under the provisions of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (in short, 'the Act'). They import tendu leaves also known as beedi leaves, into their respective local areas for the said manufacturing purpose. In these writ petitions they are aggrieved by various notices issued against them for assessing/reassessing tax on entry of tendu leaves. Their plea is that tendu leaves being the agricultural produce is exempt from levy of tax under the Act. 2. It is not in dispute that under the provisions of the Act, agricultural produces brought into local areas for being used as raw materials in manufacturing processes were not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the only question to be considered is whether beedi leaves can be held to be agricultural produce in an absolute sense without requiring any further evidence f...

The Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Varma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR2031; 1996(3)KarLJ190

ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J. 1. This revision petition is filed under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, for short 'the Act', calling in question the correctness of the order dated December 8, 1992, passed by the learned Addl. Small Causes Judge (SCCH:10), Bangalore, in HRC No. 94/1991 directing the eviction of the revision petitioners under Section 21 (1) (I) & (h) of the Act.2. The revision petitioners were respondents and the respondent was the petitioner in the court below. In this petition they will be hereinafter referred to in accordance with their status in the court below.3. A vacant land bearing No. 6A, Richmond Road, Bangalore-560 025, admeasuring 8400 Sq.ft. or thereabouts was let out by the petitioner to the respondents for the purpose of erecting a petrol pump or high speed diesel oil pump and servicing and lubricating stations and for using the said land as oil and/or Petroleum Depot for storage and use of oil, Petroleum and other products under a register...

P.V. Sindhur Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and Othe ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing beedies. They are registered as dealers under the provisions of Karnataka Tax on/Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (in short 'the Act'). They import Tendu Leaves also known as beedi leaves, into their respective local areas for the said manufacturing purpose. In these writ petitions they are aggrieved by various notices issued against them for assessing/re-assessing tax on entry of Tendu leaves. Their plea is that Tendu leaves being the agricultural produce is exempt from levy of tax under the Act.2. It is not in dispute that under the provisions of the Act, agricultural produces brought into local areas for being used as raw-materials in manufacturing processes were not chargeable to tax. Therefore, theonly question to be considered is whether beedi leaves can be held to be agricultural produce in an absolute sense without requiring any further evidence for holding so. The question whether a produce is an agricultural produce...

K. Basavaraja and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant392; 1997(1)KarLJ98

ORDER1. These two writ petitions pertain to the students who have beenadmitted by the institution in excess of the prescribed quota. Various reasons have been given in the petition including the fact that there was a lot of pressure on admissions and statements have also been made by the principal in the correspondence that there was pressure from various public figures particularly political leaders and ministers. It may be true that as far as admissions to educational institutions are concerned that both individuals and authorities convey requests and even exert pressure on the authority which undoubtedly is not proper because it then becomes impossible for the head of the institution to strictly go by the merit criteria. The question arises as to whether even if that were to be the reason, it is permissible to condone breach of the regulations in question.2. The petition has been opposed by thelearned Govt. Advocate as also the learnedadvocate who represents the university. Thecommo...

Nitte Education Trust and Another Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1997]89CompCas390(Kar)

Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, have filed this petition, for the following reliefs : (a) To declare that the provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, cannot be made applicable to the petitioner and further, to declare that the petitioner is neither carrying on any service as defined in section 2(r) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, nor is indulging in any restrictive trade practice as defined in section 2(o) of the Act. That the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents, particularly the second respondent from proceeding to take any action under the aforesaid Act as well as to direct not to proceed further under the Act on the basis of two letters dated July 20, 1987, and October 7, 1987 - annexures 'A' and 'C' to this writ petition. While filing this writ petition, the petitioners prayed for an order of stay stay...

H.L. Chandregowda Vs. Bangalore University

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2642]; ILR1996KAR2378; 1996(5)KarLJ731

ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought the issuance of a Writ of certiorari quashing the punishment imposed on the Petitioner by 1st respondent vide order dated 3.6.1988, bearing No. U.C. - EST/ E1/88-89 - Annexure-D as well as for quashing of the order of 2nd respondent dated 31.8.1989, dismissing appeal contained in Annexure-H to this Writ Petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner had been working as the Private Secretary to the Registrar, Bangalore University. According to the Petitioner's case, Petitioner reported to the duty as such on January 1st 1987 and took charge of the post of Private Secretary on that date. Further, the Petitioner's case is that he attended to all the files the charge of which had been made over to him at the time when he assumed office. That no file of Dr. Sriram Reddy, Former Professor of Sericulture was handed over to the Petitioner at the time of taking over charge. That in the course of his offici...

Ashok Foundries Vs. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR2491; 1996(5)KarLJ480

ORDERM.B. Vishwanath J.1. The learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents present. Heard.2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner- Foundries prayed that annexures 'J' and 'K' should be quashed.3. Annexure-J dated 8.6.1989 has been issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board informing the petitioner that theoperation of its industries without the previous consent of the State Board under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 attracts penal provisions of Section 39 of the said Act. It is also stated in annexure-J that no person shall operate the unit without valid consent of the Board.4. Annexure-J brings to the notice of the petitioner the legal consequences, if it does not comply with the provisions of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981. I do not think that there is anything illegal in annexure-J.5. Annexure-K dated 9.6.1989 is the order passed by the 1st respondent-the Karna...