Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]111STC322(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. In Writ Petition No. 26445 of 1997, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of sub-section (6) of section 17 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as amended by Act No. 5 of 1996 and Act No. 7 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In Writ Petition Nos. 30363 and 30364 of 1997, the petitioners, in addition to the challenge made to the constitutional validity of sub-section (6) of section 17 of the Act, have prayed for quashing of the orders of assessments made by the assessing authorities in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 12(3) read with section 17(6) of the Act, for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Copies of the said assessment orders dated April 14, 1997 and April 11, 1997 have been produced as annexures A and B respectively. 2. Since common questions of law are raised in these petitions, these petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Before referring to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1813; 2000(3)KarLJ455
ORDER1. In these 4 writ petitions, petitioners who had delivered their nominations for election to the Shishuvinahal Grama Panchayat in the District of Dharwad against four reserved constituencies have sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the respondent at Annexure-F, dated May 28, 1997 rejecting their nominations on the ground that they did not produce the certificates within time and also for a direction to theReturning Officer to accept their nominations and to declare them as duly elected against those constituencies and for such other reliefs the Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.2. Facts emerging both from the records and the pleadings are as follows:Election to Shishuvinahal Grama Panchayat Constituency-I, II, III were proposed to be held on June 8, 1997 and accordingly calendar of events Annexure-A was published by the respondent as required under Rule 12 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ459
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The only legal issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner can pass an order under Section 79(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short the ACT), withdrawing orextinguishing the privileges which are being enjoyed either by custom or under any order such as privileges in respect of Kumki lands etc.2. As it appears from the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-E) the appellants seems to be agriculturists owning lands comprised in S. Nos. 51/2 and 41/2 situated in Naricombu village of Bantwal taluk. According to them S. Nos. 54/2 and 52/1A1 of the same village form part of Kumki lands over which they hold privileges as recognised by law.3. The said Kumki privileges had been extinguished by the Deputy Commissioner, D.K by his order dated 8-5-1989 after giving due notices to all the Kumkidars and anubhogadars and on due consideration of the objections filed pursuant to the said notice, the Kumki privileges over t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC252; [1998(79)FLR524]; (1999)ILLJ687Kant
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, namely, Smt. Geetha Devi, holding brief for Sri M. Papanna and Sri B. Chidananda, holding brief for Sri S. P. Kulkarni, counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal arises under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, from the judgment and order dated June 3, 1988, given by the Employees' Insurance Court, Hubli, in E.S.I. Application No.32 of 1987, filed by the present respondent - Shankar Singh, H & F Contractor, Hubli, under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for setting aside the order dated November 2, 1987, and praying in the application that it should be held that the provisions of the Act and the Rules and Regulation thereunder do not apply and did not apply to the applicant, that is, the present respondent, in the appeal. According to the applicant's case, he is a contractor registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and has got the valid li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3685
H. Rangavittalachar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the orders passed by the District Judge, Kolar, in P & SC.No. 5/86 dated 19th September 1990 granting Probate of the will dated 23.8.1966 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act.2. Briefly stated the facts are as under :The appellant herein claims to be the daughter of on Benjamin since deceased. The respondents herein are the sisters of the appellant. The said late Benjamin was owning several movable and immovable properties including M/s Imperial Press at Kolar Gold Fields, He died in the year 1959 leaving behind his wife Mrs. Ethel Shepherd Gnanarathinam and three daughters one of them, being the appellant herein. After the death of the said Benjamin, the appellant filed a suit for partition in O.S.No. 91/62 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore which was later on transferred to the file of the Civil Judge K.G.F. and renumbered as O.S.No. 33/64. A preliminary decree was passed by a judgment dated 30.9.1965 ordering p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ194
ORDER1. The arguments of learned Counsel for petitioner and of learned High Court Government Pleader Sri M. Siddagangaiah for respondent are heard.2. Admittedly, the lands in question in Sy. Nos. 31/1, 31/2 and 31/3 situate at Nagaral Done, Sindgi Taluk of Bijapur District were the Service Inam lands attached to the Village Office of Mulki and Police Patilki. The ancestors of petitioners were the holders of the said Village Office. It is the case of the petitioners and they were minors when the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) came into force. After the death of their respective fathers and after they attained their majority both petitioners had given their joint application dated 15-9-1997 under Section 5 of the Act before respondent 3-Deputy Commissioner, praying to regrant the said lands to them and further stating at para 4 therein that respondent 2-Tahsildar refused to accept the requisite occupancy price when they wanted to credit the same. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR494
ORDER1. This matter is posted for orders on office objection regarding the requirement of filing affidavit in support of the interim application in criminal revision petition filed in the High Court as required under Rule 2 of Chapter X of the Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Rules').2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised by the office is not maintainable as the petitioner being an accused, he cannot be compelled to swear. In view of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter called the Act), no oath can be administered to the accused and as such there is a clear bar for filing of affidavit in criminal matters. As similar type of objection has been raised in many of the criminal cases and the same explanation is given, in order to settle the controversy, I requested the Members of the Bar to address arguments on this point. Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned Senior Counsel, leading the arguments contended that as per Section 4(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1956
ORDER1. This matter is posted for orders on office objection regarding the requirement of filing affidavit in support of the interim application in criminal revision petition filed in the High Court as required under Rule 2 of Chapter X of the Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the Rules). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised by the office is not maintainable as the petitioner being an accused, he cannot be compelled to swear. In view of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter called the Act), no oath can be administered to the accused and as such there is a clear bar for filing of affidavit in criminal matters. As similar type of objection has been raised in many of the criminal cases and the same explanation is given, in order to settle the controversy I requested the Members of the Bar to address arguments on this point. Sri. S. G. Bhagawan, learned senior counsel leading the arguments contended that as per Section 4(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1999)ACC257; 1999ACJ900; ILR1998KAR1771; 2000(3)KarLJ575
1. The legal representatives of one late Sri Shanthilal, filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of late Shantilal before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as compensation. The Tribunal after quantifying the compensation absolved the liability of the Insurance Company of satisfying the award holding that the Insurer is entitled to avoid the liability against third party risk on the ground that the insured has sold the vehicle covered by the insurance policy before the date of the accident. Aggrieved by the order and award passed by the Tribunal, the original owner Sri S.M. Yahaya has filed this appeal.2. The appellant has raised several contentions in the appeal. But at the time of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant restricted his argument only to one point, that is,'Whether the Insurer is entitled to avoid its liability agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1003; 1998(5)KarLJ197
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged endorsement dated 4-2-1986, copy as at Annexure 'T' to writ petition, whereby the respondent 1-Corporation had revoked the khata of the property in respect of 1/2 and 1/3 on the ground that the said property belonged to it.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B.N. Dayanand and the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents 1 and 2 by Sri B.V. Muralidhar. The respondents 3 and 4 are represented by Sri G.B. Shastry.3. It is submitted that the petitioner herein had constructed houses in property Nos. 1/2 and 1/3 which according to the respondent-Corporation belongs to them. That at the first instance, the Corporation had registered the khata in the name of the petitioner herein and subsequently when the Corporation came to know that, that property belonged to them, they issued the impugned endorsement to revoke the khata they had registered earlier. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the Corporati...
Tag this Judgment!