Karnataka Court August 1997 Judgments

Smt. Parvathamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR3400; 1998(1)KarLJ752

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.2. As per the impugned order, the Land Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in surplus land to the extent of 61 acres 14 guntas and so it ordered that it should vest in Government and directed the Tahasildar to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the impugned order. It is a highly arbitrary order.4. Before passing the order in question, the Chairman has not followed the procedure under Rules 24(1) and 17 of the K.L.R. Rules. The law in this regard has been laid down by this Court in Parvatevva v State of Karnataka . The Tribunal is directed to read this decision and then proceed to dispose of the matter afresh. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands sold after 24-1-1971 should be taken into consideration while passing the o...

Krishnappa and Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural Distri ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(2)KarLJ184

ORDER1. By this petition, petitioner has challenged orders dated 24th April, 1992, passed by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings under Section 5 of Act 2 of 1979, whereby, the Assistant Commissioner has taken the view that the sale of the land by the grantees in favour of the transferees and predecessors of the present petitioner were null and void as the transfer of the sales have been in contravention of these conditions contained in the grant and so, ordered that the persons under them be evicted from the land and land be resumed.2. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the present petitioners, who are alienees of the grantees have come up in writ petition.3. The facts of the case in the nutshell are: According to the petitioners, the land was granted on 13-5-1960, in favour of Chikkamuniga, 2 acres and in favour of Munishamappa alias Munishamy, 2 acres and in favour of Berikappa, 2 acres, that is, 6 acres of Sy. No. 70, of Village Ranganathapura. The...

Smt. Hanumakka and Others Vs. BipIn Bai and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998ACJ1092; ILR1998KAR249; 1998(1)KarLJ116

1. The only problem that arose in this case was that the Tribunal quantified the overall compensation at Rs. 81,000/-whereas the appellant had claimed an aggregate of Rs. 60,000/- under all heads. Learned Member therefore held that it is not permissible for him to exceed the amount that has been claimed and limited the compensation to Rs.60,000/-. The appeal is presented assailing this order and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant presented an application for amendment of the original claim which has been allowed. Having regard to that position, the entire dispute is rendered academic for the simple reason that the respondent-Insurance Company has not appealed against the original award and is therefore bound by it.2. At the hearing, appellant's learned Advocate relied on a Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court reported in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another v Kisan G.H. and Others . The Division Bench while considering asomewhat similar stand had ...

Smt. G.R. Vinodhkrishna Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(3)KarLJ558

ORDER1. The Oriental Insurance Company sold to the petitioner in a public auction, vehicle bearing Registration No. CAS 1747. There is some confusion about the dates on which the auction took place, but since nothing much turns on that aspect the same need not detain us. What is admitted is that the vehicle in question was taken over by the petitioner on 16-12-1988, although its ownership was transferred in her favour only on 8-5-1990 that too pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in a writ petition filed by her; This direction was upheld even by the Division Bench in appeal.2. The controversy now is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the tax due against the vehicle under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for the period 1-11-1988 to 31-10-1989 for which a demand has been raised against her by the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore and upheld in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport. It is not disputed that for the period commencing 1st December, 1989 on...

C.V. Govindarajulu Vs. R.V. Bhaskar and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998CriLJ939

ORDER1. All these revisions are directed against the common order dt. 4-4-95 passed by the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, accepting the final 'B' report and consequently dismissing the complaint.2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these revision petitions, they are consolidated for the purpose of disposal.3. A few facts necessary for the disposal of these proceedings are as hereunder :The petitioner herein filed a complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate requesting him to take cognizance of the offences punishable under. S. 120(b), 419, 420, 468, 471, 114 r/w 34, IPC. The said complaint was referred to the jurisdictional police for investigation and report u/S. 156(3), Cr.P.C. The Chickpete police who have investigated the matter, filed a 'B' report holding that the complaint is of civil nature. This 'B' report is challenged by the complainant by filing a protest petition. The learned Magistrate after considering ...

Avinyl Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR576

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioners herein are engaged in the business of manufacturing various commodities. Their manufacturing units are situated within the jurisdictional limits of 'local areas' as defined under section 2(5) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter 'the Act' only). For the purpose of their manufacturing process, they purchase the raw materials like chemicals, petro products, based oil, beedi leaves, bulk drugs and/or packing materials from outside the State of Karnataka and after causing entry thereof in the said local areas, consume the said goods in their manufacturing process or packing of finished products.2. According to the petitioners, though, under Notification No. FD 112 CET 93(III) dated March 30, 1994 read with Notification No. FD 109 CET 97(8) dated March 31, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'first' and 'second' notification) issued under section 3(1) of the Act, the raw materials brought by them in the local areas, which hav...

Krishna Foods Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. Regional Provident Fund C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ470

ORDER1. Krishna Foods Private Limited is a factory in which Cookies/biscuits are manufactured. It had started manufacturing activity in the year 1985. After availing infancy protection for the requisite period under Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('Act' for short), petitioner was liable to be covered under the Act depending upon whether, as from a particular date, the number of employees working therein were 20 or more. By an order dated 28-6-1989 at Annexure-E, and after an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act, respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner held that the petitioner is covered under the Act with effect from 31-3-1988, and that the petitioner is required to implement various provisions of the Scheme under the Act. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks quashing of tbe said order at Annexure-E.2. Petitioner's contention is this.--It had only 16 employees. So far the number of it...

Sarang Steel Fabricators Vs. Keb and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J. 1. The electrical installation at petitioner's unit at Belgaum bears the R.R.No. M.62/75. On 29/30.7.1993, the said electrical installation was inspected and rated by the officials of the Karnataka Electricity Board. They found that the meter was recording 50.4% slow, as per Inspection report dated 30.7.1993 (Annexure A) furnished to petitioner. The petitioner endorsed on the said report that it was not accepting the report and also filed its objections, contending that it will not accept any back billing claim. Again the electrical installation was inspected on 20.9.1993 and a report dated 20.9.1993 was issued to the petitioner stating that the meter was recording 51.99% slow. The petitioner filed its objections dated 21,9.1993 and requested that the dispute be referred to the Electrical Inspector for decision. Thereafter, the Board issued a back billing claim notice dated 27.9.1993 (Annexure E) stating that a sum of Rs. 57,370.65 is due on account of back bil...