Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1573
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Despite half a century of independence, overthrow of the foreign rule, abolition of monarchial system of Governments and the sea changes brought about in the socio-economic-political system in the Democratic Republic of India, the successors-in-interest of the former ruler of Mysore State have challenged the jurisdiction of the Legislature in enacting laws with the purpose of depriving them of the privileges allegedly conferred upon the ruler in lieu of the surrender of sovereignty in favour of the Dominion of India. Claim to the properties has been sought to be protected under the umbrella stated to have been provided by the Instrument of Accession and Articles 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State Legislature in enacting the laws with respect to the properties of the former ruler of Mysore has also been challenged on the grounds of inherent lack of jurisdiction under Part XI read with Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. In orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998AIR(Kar)20; 1997(3)KantLJ622; 1997(3)KarLJ622
CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.(1) THE instant appeal is filed to challenge the order on. A.. dated 8-10-1992 passed in O. S. No. 751/1987 by the VII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH No. 13), Bangalore, whereby the said Additional City Civil Judge had dismissed the suit of the appellant.(2) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M. Raviprakash and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Sri Urval M. Ramanand. I have perused the case records including the case records of the Court below and further certain case papers pertaining to the dispute in case No. JRB/mis. Dispute No. 38/76-77 before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore District, Bangalore City and copy of the final order came to be passed in Appeal No. 668/78 dated 12-8-1980 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and order dated 16-10-1984 in W. P. No. 18024/1980 of this Court, made available to me by both sides to the appeal to assist me to understand the background of the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1997)142CTR(Kar)314; ILR1997KAR2661; [1997]228ITR427(KAR); [1997]228ITR427(Karn)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the GT Act, 1958 ('Act' for short) is made by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The facts leading to the reference are given below briefly. 1.1. The petitioner was the owner of two sites bearing Nos. 20 and 27, I, Main Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore, which were valued at Rs. 4,50,000 by an approved valuer on 16th April, 1979 in connection with his WT assessment for the asst. yr. 1979-80. He entered into a partnership with his mother w.e.f. 1st July, 1979 and contributed the said two sites as his capital at a value of Rs. 1,35,000. Subsequently, the firm was reconstituted on 14th March, 1980 by inducting the petitioner's father as a partner, resulting in a change in the profit-sharing ratio of the partners. The GTO issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to file his return. The petitioner filed a nil Return on 27th February, 1987. Thereafter, the GTO passed an Order on 31st March, 1987 assessing the gift-t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ79Kant
1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, from the judgment and order dated January 13, 1992, given by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Kodagu, Medikeri District, rejecting the appellant/applicant's claim for compensation. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Babu as per claim of the petitioner/appellant who was the husband of the present appellant, was the workman/employee in the coffee estate by name Umashankara Estate at Anyathamangala which belonged to the respondent. The claim of the applicant has been that her husband, Sri Babu, on May 12, 1989, came to cheek roll. He was not feeling well but was directed and ordered by the respondent to unload the manure bags from the jeep and he did so and carried the bags of manure from jeep to store room. The claimant's case further has been that the said Babu felt chest pain at about 11.00 a.m. At 3 p.m. Babu, the workman, was admitted in the Government Hospital, Siddapura, for the trea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1661
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioners are allottees of Flats or Row Houses in Nandini Layout. In this batch of Petitions they have challenged the notices issued to them by Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) demanding increase in the cost of Flats/Houses allotted and delivered to them, in pursuance of its Resolution No. 239/94 dated 3.9.1994 increasing the price of such flats and houses.2. BDA (Second Respondent) is an Authority constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('Act' for short).Section 15 of the Act enables BDA to draw up and undertake development schemes involving construction of Buildings for the benefit of needy public. The First Respondent (State Government), in exercise of its powers under Section 69 of the Act, made the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Buildings under Self Financing Scheme) Rules 1982 ('Rules' for short) regarding allotment of Houses/Flats constructed under such Schemes.3. BDA Formulated and declared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998ACJ387; 1998(6)KarLJ166
1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 from the Judgment and Order dated 13-1-1992 given by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Kodagu, Madikeri District rejecting appellant/applicant's claim for compensation.2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Babu as per claim of the petitioner/appellant who was the husband of the present appellant, was the workmen/employee in the Coffee Estate by name Umashankara Estate at Anyathamangala which belonged to the respondent. The claim of the applicant has been that her husband Sri Babu on 12-5-1989 came to checkroll. He was not feeling well but was directed and ordered by the respondents to unload the manure bags from the jeep and he did so and carried the bags of manure from jeep to store room. The claimants case further has been that said Babu felt chest pain at about 11.00 a.m. At 3 p.m. Babu, the workman was admitted in the Government Hospital, Siddapura for the treatment of chest pain etc. and accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2759
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. In these two cases, petitioners raised an identical question for determination. Hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Retain a copy in each file.2. In Cr.P. 1450/94 the respondent filed a complaint under Section 20 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in which it is alleged that the petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly inserted 'O' next to the figure '90,000' to tally with the words Rs. 9 lakhs, thus he committed offences punishable under Sections 464, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 474 read with Section 420 IPC. The leaned Magistrate directed the police to investigate and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Similarly, in Cr.P.2280/94 the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners on the allegation that the 1st petitioner in collusion with petitioners 2 & 3 forged and, fabricated a document styled as an agreement of sale in his favour by the complainant and his brother wherein the 1st petitioner has forged the signatures of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant365; 1997(3)KarLJ333
ORDER1. Rao Bahadur Annaswamy Mudaliar Trust is constituted under a Will dated 31-10-1914 of Rao Bahadur B. P. Annaswamy Mudphan Rao died on 22-1-1924. The object and the purpose for which the trust property could he put into use is settled under a scheme framed by the Court of the District Judge. Civil Station Bangalore in O.S. I of 1946.2. The eviction petitions schedule premises bearing Municipal Nos. 49, 50 and 51 of St. Marks Road and No. 41, Museum Road, Bangalore which are adjacent properties are owned by the said Trust. In respect of premises Nos. 49 and 50 measuring about 22560 sq. feet HRC No. 6864/80 and in respect of premises No. 51 measuring about 32980 sq. feel, HRC 6865/80 were filed by the Trust against the petitioners and some others seeking their eviction in terms of the provisions of Section 21(1)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The lease in respect of both the premises commenced on 31-8-1956 in favour of Airflow Transport (India) Private Ltd., a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1535; 1997(3)KarLJ298
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. This matter coming on for admission today, it is heard and disposed of by this order.2. This revision is directed against the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioners-appellants filed under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC requesting the Trial Court to treat them as indigent persons and permit them to file the appeal in information pauperis.3. Facts of this case in brief are as follows: The first respondent - Bank has obtained a money decree for recovery of Rs. 14,000/-against which an appeal is preferred by the petitioners. They have filed an application under Order 44 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission of the Court to prosecute the appeal as indigent persons.The second petitioner has filed an affidavit swearing to the fact that all the appellants are poor agriculturists and they have no definite source of income for their livelihood. The second petitioner owns 1 acre 25 guntas of land and his mothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3127
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Claiming to be the members of the respondent - Society, the appellants, on their own behalf and on behalf of the other members of the Society filed Writ Petitions with prayer for quashing Rule 7(A) of the Rules and Regulations of the H.K.E. Society, Gulbarga (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). Further prayer was made for the issuance of writ of mandamus to the first respondent to direct, in turn, to the second respondent to prepare a voters' list including the names of all the persons who were on rolls as members during 1978-79 and whose names were shown in the Register of Members prepared after 1978-79 and whose names had been added to the said list from time to time irrespective of the fact whether they had paid subscription or they were in arrears. Referring to the provisions of Sections 2(b), 6, 9 and 19 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'Act) and Rule 3 made thereunder, it was claimed that despite being in arrears, a person ...
Tag this Judgment!