Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR302; 1998(2)KarLJ62
ORDER1. Petitioner-Smt. Rudra Bai prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga ('R-2' for short) dated 4-4-1983, passed in Case No. LND-l-CR-1141/1982-83 and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing him to consider together the applications of herself and respondent 1 CR-1' for short) both made for grant of the Government land in question under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for short). The certified copy of the impugned order of R-2 is produced at Annexure-A.2. The arguments of learned Counsel on both sides were heard.3. A piece of Government land measuring 30 guntas in Survey No. 163 situate in H.K. Grama of Shimoga Taluk is the bone ofcontention between the petitioner and R-l. The said extent of land is shown in the rough sketch produced along with petition, and also in the sketch produced by R-l at Annexure-R7. It is specified in Annexure-R 7 with letters 'A' and 'B'. The topography of the land in dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ381
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The short point that is involved in this appeal but a point of considerable importance is a question as to whether the appellant insurance company can be held liable for the claim that has been preferred on behalf of a deceased police constable. The incident in question took place at about 2.45 a.m. in the early hours of 15.9.1985. The lorry No. MED 4692 was approaching Nelamangala Town and two police constables boarded that lorry. Some time later, there was a violent collision between this truck and another stationary truck parked on the highway without any lights. As a result of this collision, both the police constables died and two claims were preferred. We are not concerned with the other claim except to a very limited extent in so far as the Tribunal did award an amount of Rs. 60.000 in that case as compensation and the respondents' learned advocate submitted that the insurance company has not appealed against that award. The appellant's learned advocate state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ276
ORDER1. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking and the registered owner of a power tiller bearing Registration No. 7334. The tiller was exempted from the payment of tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 from the date of its Registration in April, 1971. More than 17 years later, the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore, issued a Demand Notice calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,657-50 representing tax due under the Act for the period 1-4-1971 to 30th of September, 1988. The notice justified the demand on the ground that the petitioner was not solelydependent upon agricultural income which was according to the respondent an essential condition for an exemption under Section 16(3) of the Taxation Act, read with Rule 85-B of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 introduced by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1963 introduced by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (6th Amendment) Rules, 1983. Aggrieved, the petitioner has questioned the vali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3331
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner is calling in question the validity of the notifications dated 19-7-1993 and 16-8-1993 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District. The ground upon which the petitioner is challenging the same is that, there is no compliance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of theKarnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Secondly, it is contended that the notification at Annexure-B is issued by the Headquarters Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner who was placed in charge of the office of the Deputy Commissioner and the statutory powers exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner could not be exercised by any authority other than the Deputy Commissioner. Any in charge arrangement that had been made by the Government in that regard would not enable him to exercise the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the notification at Annexure-B is invalid. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for purposes o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(3)KarLJ234
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, convicting the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 143, 147, 323 read with Section 149, Section 423 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 4(iv) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955 ('the Act' for short) and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each for the offences under Sections 323, 426 and 143 of the IPC with default clause and to suffer S.I. for a period of one month and a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 4(iv) of the Act, in default to suffer S.I. for a period of 4 days.2. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is assailed on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the important portions of cross-examination of witnesses which are favourable to the accused and that the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence in holding that the ingredients of the offence under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1145; 1998(2)KarLJ176
ORDER1. By this petition the transferee has challenged the order dated 26-4-1991, passed by the Assistant Commissioner in Case No. LND. UAG(S) 10/88-89, allowing application under Section 5 ofAct 2 of 1979, that is Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 as well as order dated 21-11-1996, passed in RA. SC. ST (DTCH) 8/91-92 by Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur.2. It is an admitted fact that the land was granted to one Ramappa-husband of respondent 4 who belonged to Adi-Karnataka Caste, vide, grant dated 25-12-1961. The total area of the land granted in favour of Ramappa was 4 acres. Ramappa sold the land vide, sale deed dated 11-11-1971, in favour of petitioner-Mudalappa. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the land on the basis of the sale deed. An application under Section 5 of the Act having been moved by the second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner after having made enquiries held that the sale in question was mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ506
ORDER1. This petition is by the alienee, who had purchased the granted land from respondent 3, vide, sale deed dated 5-4-1968 and 28-5-1969, challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 25-4-1992, Annexure-B to the writ petition and the order of the Deputy Commissioner in appeal dated 15-2-1996. The petitioner has sought quashing of these orders by issue of writ of certiorari and also prayed for direction to be issued to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from 2 acres of land of Sy. No. 44/1 and New No. 78 of Bydarahalli Village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District.2. The facts so far as concerned there is not much dispute. Petitioner's Counsel admitted that the father of respondent 3 namely Mudalaiah in whose favour the land was granted on 16-5-1949 vide, Annexure-A, belonged to Adidravida caste. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute that so far as the grant is concerned. It was a free grant and that in 1949, as per Rule 43(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]110STC33(Kar)
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. Two questions fall for consideration in these writ petitions. These are : (i) whether it is essential for the assessing authority to ascertain the legal representatives of the deceased assessee and the estate that has fallen in their hands before any liability by way of tax determined against any such assessee can be recovered from them and (ii) whether a demand notice issued and served upon an assessee abates upon his death so as to make it necessary for the assessing authority to issue a fresh demand against the legal representatives before initiating recovery proceedings against them The questions arise in the following background : 2. M/s. Prabhath Engineering, Bangalore, was a partnership concern for the assessment period 1977-78 to 1981-82. For the period 1982-83 and 1983-84, the said concern was a sole proprietary concern of which Mr. K. V. V. Setty, the husband of the petitioner in the present writ petition was the sole proprietor. Assessment procee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3386; 1997(4)KarLJ693
ORDER1. Writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties. The Government Advocate takes notice for the 2nd Respondent. The management K.S.R.T.C. challenges the award passed by the labour Court dated May 29, 1993. By the said award, the complaint of the 1st respondent was allowed and the order passed by the management dismissing the 1st respondent from service was set aside. The management was directed to reinstate the 1st respondent with continuity of service and payment of full back wages. Aggrieved by the award, the management has preferred this writ petition. 2. The 1st respondent was working as a conductor. On May 23, 1985 the 1st respondent while conducting the bus, the Security Inspectors checked the bus and they found that the conductor had not issued tickets to ten passengers who were in the bus travelling from V. V. Puram Post Office to Central Bus Stand, despite collection of 0.60 paise from each of the said ten passengers. It was also found that he had not issued ticket...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3199; 1997(4)KarLJ552
ORDER1. Writ Petition is taken up with the consent of parties. 2. Learned Government Advocate takes notice for the 2nd respondent. 3. The Management challenges the award passed by the Labour Court dated October 13, 1993, as per Annexure-A. By the said award, the Labour Court allowed the claim statement of the first respondent-workman under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service from the date of removal and it was also ordered that backwages to be paid from the date of removal till his reinstatement. 4. The 1st respondent was working as a conductor with the K.S.R.T.C. He was dismissed from service for an alleged misconduct of not issuing tickets even after collecting fare and he a was dismissed from service on March 28, 1979. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Act. The Labour Court, on a preliminary issue held that the domestic enqui...
Tag this Judgment!