Karnataka Court July 1997 Judgments

Dr. Anand David Saldanha Vs. K. Rathnaraj Ballal

Court: Karnataka

A.M. Farooq, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 19-4-1997, in Miscellaneous Case No. 23/97 on the file of the learned District Judge, Dakshin Kannada at Mangalore. 2. The appellant herein filed an application before the Lower Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') and sought for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents, his men or agents or any person claiming through him from trespassing into or in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of A and B Schedule properties shown in the application. 3. Alongwith the said application, the appellant herein also filed I.A. No. II under Section 9(d) of the Arbitration Act read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, C.P.C. and sought for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction against the respondents and his men. 4. After entertaining the applica...

Dr. Anand David Saldanha Vs. Dr. K. Rathnaraj Ballal

Court: Karnataka

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the order dated 19-4-1997, in Miscellaneous Case No. 23 of 1997, on the file of the learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada at Mangalore.2. The appellant herein filed an application before the lower Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') and sought for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent, his men or agents or any person claiming through him from trespassing into or in any way interfering with the peaceful possession andenjoyment of A and B Schedule properties shown in the application.3. Along with the said application, the appellant herein also filed I.A. II under Section 9(d) of the Arbitration Act read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, CPC and sought for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction against the respondent and his men.4. After entertaining the application, the Trial Cou...

National Mineral Development Corporation Limited Vs. State of Karnatak ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1997Kant331; ILR1997KAR2528; 1997(4)KarLJ162

ORDER1. The present writ petition has been filed by a Government Company (hereinafter the 'Company') for issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining the Government of Karnataka and/or its Officers from interfering with its mining operations.2. The Company is owned, managed and controlled by the Government of India with its 98.5% subscribed share capital. It is engaged in the business of mining in various minerals, more particularly iron ore.3. It is not in dispute that the Company was granted a mining lease being ML. No. 839 for mining of iron ore over an area of 2013.35 hectares situated in Donimalai, Sandoor Taluka, Bellary District. The said lease was granted by the Government of Karnataka under and in accordance with the provisions of Minor and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter in short 'Mineral Act' and 'Mineral Rules' respectively). The lease was for a period of 20 years commencing from 4-11-1968. Therefore, it w...

Smt. B. Pushpalatha Vs. K. Mohan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1998]93CompCas378(Kar)

M.P. Chinnappa, J.1. An important question is raised in this petition, viz., that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the cheque was issued on October 15, 1992, with the date on the cheque as March 22, 1993. The said cheque was presented on April 24, 1993. The date has to be computed from the date of issuance of the cheque and not the date mentioned in the cheque itself. On that ground, counsel contended that the cheque was presented beyond 6 months from the date of issuance. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 2. Repelling this argument, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the cheque in question was post-dated and the same was presentable before the bank for encashment only on March 22, 1993, or on subsequent date. Therefore, the cheque presented was within time. It is an admitted fact that the respondent has lodged a complaint under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the VIIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate...

Lingeshwar and Co. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2233

G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The appellant is a partnership-firm. It is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act'). It carries on business in foodgrains, pulses, edible oils, etc. The present appeals have been directed against the orders dated February 17, 1997, February 17, 1997, February 18, 1997 and February 18, 1997 passed for the periods 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 22A(3) of the Act revising the appellate orders for the said years under its suo motu revisional jurisdiction. 2. The revisional authority keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan : AIR1994SC64 has brought the gramdal flour to levy of turnover tax at the rate of 1.25 per cent as provided under section 6B of the Act. Admittedly, the said point was neither raised nor decided in the earlier proceedings for the said asses...

Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2730

ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing three notices dated November 7, 1987, copies of which have been produced as annexures A1 to A3 and notice dated December 30, 1992, a copy of which has been produced as annexure A4, and three notices dated August 19, 1996, copies of which have been produced as annexures F1 to F3 and notice dated August 16, 1996, a copy of which has been produced as annexure F4. 2. Brief facts that may be relevant for disposal of these petitions may be set out as hereunder : The petitioner, in these petitions, is a public limited company engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of Indian-made foreign liquor (hereinafter referred to as 'the IMFL'); chemical fertilisers and fertiliser mixtures and consumer products, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that it has its own distilleries in some of the States of Union of India; and for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84, it did not have a distillery of it...

Channaveerappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant109; 1998(1)KarLJ97

ORDER1. Heard the petitioner's Counsel Sri B.A. Lokesh, the learned Government Advocate representing the respondents 1 and 2, in the writ petition.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that as per allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner intended to start the video parlour and with that intention, he made an application to the District Magistrate (Additional), Raichur District, Raichur, on 18-3-1989 and 4-10-1990, for the grant of licence to exhibit films on Television Screen through VCR at House No. 1-2-1993/1-2-1979, at Devadurga Town, Raichur District. According to the petitioner, acting under the Rules of 1984, the respondent 2, called for the report from the concerned authorities as required under the Rules of 1984, that is the Karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorder (Regulation) Rules, 1984, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 84' and the concerned authorities submitted the reports. The petitioner's case is that he had inve...

Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha, Avalahalli, Bangalore South Talu ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2211; 1998(1)KarLJ227

R.P. Sethi, CJ.1. Aggrieved by the Notification dated 29-3-1986, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 and the Notification dated 4-5-1987 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), the appellants and some others filed Writ Petition Nos. 7837, 8113 and 8958 of 1987, which were heard together and disposed of vide the order impugned in these appeals. Writ Appeal Nos. 4630 of 1995 and 95 of 1996 have been filed by some of the owners of the land and Writ Appeal No. 75 of 1996 by the Society which was impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petitions. The landowners have submitted that instead of remanding the case to enquire into the objections filed by them, the learned Single Judge should have allowed the writ petitions by quashing the impugned notifications, whereas the appellant-Society has prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 7837 of 1987 and dismissal of the af...

R.V. Krishnappa Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(2)KarLJ116

ORDER1. Compassionate appointments cannot be equated with compensatory, substituted or in lieu of deceased employee is services. Compassionate appointment is conferred on account of fellow-feeling or sorrow for the suffering of another, as pity or mercy. Such appointments are resorted to in exceptional circumstances of personal reasons in a given case. This Court and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by only sympathetic consideration. Law is acknowledged to be the embodiment of all wisdom, and justice according to law is a principle as old as the seas on the earth. The Apex Court in Martin Burn Limited v Corporation of Calcutta, observed:'A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of course be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not'.In Life Insurance Corporation of India v Mrs. Asha Ramchandr...

Hanumappa Vs. Honnappa and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(1)KarLJ630

ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, namely the Special Deputy Commissioner, dated 27-10-1986, in SCPTL (A) 237/84/85, vide, Annexure-D to the writ petition whereby, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 3-9-1979, in Case No. SCPTL 4/79-80.2. The facts of the case in nut-shell are that land measuring 10 acres of Sy. No. 47/2 of village Purlahalli in Challakere Taluk was granted to Hanumanthappa on 5-2-1957. The grantee by virtue of sale deed dated 18-5-1964, transferred the entire granted land in favour of Halappa s/o Jannappa. According to the petitioner's case, the Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga Sub-division, Chitradurga, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka State SC and ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Act 2 of 1979) and after due notice to the alienee he passed the order on 3-9-1979, declaring the transfer deed dated 18-5-19...