Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant321; [1997]106STC442(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Each of these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution raises the same question. Since the facts, issues and questions of law raised are identical, these petitions are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by his common order. 2. The reliefs sought in these petitions are mainly for a declaration to declare that Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board is not a local area and the entry of scheduled goods into that area would not attract charging provisions under the Entry Tax Act, since the Karnataka Ordinance No. 2 of 1992 which came into effect from may 1, 1992 having lapsed by efflux of time, the notifications issued pursuant to section 3(1) of the Act to effectuate the charge with respect to items coming under First Schedule to the Act having become inoperative, the notifications have been rendered redundant and non-operative, that the notification dated July 30, 1992 inserting entry 81 which brought to effectuate the charge relating to entry 80 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1283; 1997(3)KarLJ683
Kumar Rajarathnam, J.1. The appellant was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. She sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 3rd respondent in case No. SC/ST 174/87-88 and also for a writ of declaration to declare that the order of the 4th respondent dated 7.11.1987 as illegal and without jurisdiction.2. The facts very briefly are: The petitioner's mother one Smt. Arundi Thimmakka had taken certain land measuring 5 acres in S.No. 21/6 of Akkathangerakatte village in Honnali taluk, on lease in the year 1969-70 and that she was a tenant in occupation on the appointed day under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. She also made an application for grant of occupancy rights in her favour. The Land Tribunal passed an order in favour of the said Arundi Thimmakka by its order dated 5th May 1976.3. This land was granted under Darkast in favour of Dasa Bhovi, father of Appanna Bhovi, the first respondent herein in proceedings No. M4.DCP. 19/47-48 dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1931; 1997(3)KarLJ37
ORDERKumar Rajarathnam, J. 1. The Decree holder who is the respondent before this Court sought delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in Execution Case No. 59 of 1991 on the file of the IVth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The learned Judge by his order dated 16th of December 1991, held that the decree passed in O.S.No. 1174/1983 dated 21.4.1984 sought to be executed in the Execution Petition is executable. Aggrieved by this order in Ex.No. 59/91 the tenant has preferred this Revision Petition.2. The facts of the case very briefly are:The respondent-landlord preferred Original Suit No. 1174/1983 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore for delivery of vacant possession of schedule premises and also for arrears of rent. The parties entered into a compromise and according to the said compromise, the suit was decreed. Under the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the landlord acknowledged taking possession of a portion of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2291; ILR1998KAR3399
ORDER1. This is a contempt proceeding of considerable importance for a variety of reasons, the main one being that the facts of the case are unusual or rather extraordinary, but more importantly because, the respondent-contemnor happens to be a senior practising advocate. He had addressed a letter dt. 16-11-1994 to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this High Court. The letter is rather long one and we would prefer to refrain from reproducing it because such a procedure is unnecessary. A reading to that letter indicates that the respondent was desirous of corrective action being taken in respect of several areas. For example, one of the grievances projected by him was that when the subordinate judicial officers are transferred, that some amount of consideration be afforded to the consequences of such an abrupt transfer vis-a-vis the litigations that are pending before those officers. As an example, he had cited a very long drawn out litigation which had been very competently handled by a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ238; ILR1998KAR817; 1997(3)KarLJ713
Saldanha, J.1. As many as 17 accused persons were put on trial before the learned Sessions Judge at Raichur on a host of serious charges in relation to an incident that took place at Bappur village on the morning of 10-10-1985. We need to prefix this judgment with the observation that the facts of this case are extremely gruesome and that the incident is accompanied by a high level of brutality which extended right up to the point of attempting to burn the corpse and destroy all traces of the evidence of the incident. It is alleged that on the morning of 10-10-1985 at about 8-30 a.m. the deceased Pampanagowda and P.W. 1. Veerabhadrappa had gone to the hotel of P.W. 4 Pampayya for some refreshments. When they came out of that place, they noticed a tractor belonging to accused No. 3 approaching with about a dozen persons in it. These persons had been identified as accused Nos. 2 to 14. The house of accused No. 1 is stated to be very close to the hotel and the allegation is that accused N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)84; ILR1997KAR1194; 1997(4)KarLJ345
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Vanaspathi having its factory at Hubli. It appears that, in the midnight of 18th and 19th January, 1988, a consignment of 660 tins of Vanaspathi which was being carried in truck bearing No. CAK 1675 belonging to the petitioner, was seized by the Revenue Inspector within the limits of Dharwad District, for the alleged contravention of the Karnataka Edible Oils, Edible Oil Seeds and Oil Cakes (Declaration of Stocks) Order, 1976. On the following day i.e., 19.1.1988, police registered Crime No. 71 88 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act) and proceeded with the investigation. In the meantime, on an application filed by the petitioner, the seized tins were released to in his favour by the Collector under his order dated 6.2.1988 subject to furnishing of Bank Guarantee. According to the petitioner, he had furnished the Bank guarantee of Rs. 1,06,130/ - in favour of the Collector...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2796
Acts/Rules/Orders:Karnataka Co-operative Societries Act, 1959 - Sections 28-A and 30(1);Constitution of India - Article 226Cases Referred:George v. Joint Registrar, 1985 Kerala Law Times 836;M.L. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, 1995(1) Kar. L.J. 576JUDGEMENTP. Krishnamoorthy, J.1. These appeals are against the judgment in W.P. No. 16378 of 1992 by four members of a society by name 'The Nurserymen Co-operative Society Limited', Lalbagh, Bangalore.2. W.P. No. 20301 of 1994 is to review the order dated 13-4-1994 passed in M.L. Nagaraj and Others v State of Karnataka and Others.3. W.A. (FR) No. 3386 of 1994 is by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16378 of 1992.4. W.A. Nos. 517 to 519 of 1995 are by four members of the respondent-Society against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16378 of 1992 and connected writ petitions.5. The three writ petitions, out of which these appeals arise, pertain to the affairs of a Co-oper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(6)KarLJ126
ORDER1. The challenge in this petition is directed against the appointment of the 3rd respondent Dr. Bangeri, as Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The petition which inter alia seeks a writ of quo warranto and purports to have been filed in public interest assails the appointment in question on precisely speaking two distinct grounds. Firstly, it is urged that respondent Dr. Bangeri does not qualify for appointment in the light of the requirements of Section 4(2) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in that he does not possess any special knowledge or experience in administering institutions dealing with the said matters. Alternatively, it is urged that the petitioner is disqualified from being appointed as Chairman under Section 6(f) of the Act on account of he being the proprietor of a concern called M/s. B.P. Consultants, Hubli, which was providing consultancy service in Environmental Engineering to various private organisations and was on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(6)KarLJ537
ORDER1. The crucial question that falls for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioner-institutions have a legally enforceable right to insist that they should be constituted as examination centres for the examinations conducted by the respondent-Board. The question however is no longer res integra having been answered against the petitioners by three different Benches of this Court in identical petitions filed by some of such institutions. In Shri Basaveshwara Pre-University College v Director of Pre-University Board, Bangalore and Others, Saldanha, J., held that the decision to establish the examination centre is an administrative decision dependant on a variety of factors and that no institution can claim a vested right to have such a centre established or insist that it should be treated as an examination centre. It was observed that if the decision taken is incorrect, unfair or perverse, it may in restricted instances be capable of judicial review limite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)KarLJ694
ORDER1. This is a landlord's revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and it is directed against the order dated 29-8-1994 in H.R.C.R. No. 16 of 1989 on the file of thelearned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, confirming the order dated 17-12-1988 passed in H.R.C. No. 8 of 1986 on the file of the learned Principal Munsiff, Hospet.2. The petitioner instituted eviction petition under Section 21(1)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') claiming possession of the petition schedule premises which is admittedly in possession of the respondent as a tenant. The case of the petitioner was that his father filed H.R.C. No. 3 of 1984, before the same Court seeking eviction of the respondent herein on the same ground as mentioned in this petition. The father of the petitioner died during the pendency of the said HRC petition. A memo was filed by the Counsel appearing for his father after the death of his father...
Tag this Judgment!