Karnataka Court November 1998 Judgments
Madan Kumar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4000; 2000(3)KarLJ321
ORDER1. The fourth respondent-Tahsildar allotted to the petitioners, Site Nos. 99, 100 and 101 of Munnekolala Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Pursuant to the grants made in the year 1972, the lands granted came to be entered in the village panchayat records and the petitioners secured building licences for building on the sites granted to them. Krishna Reddy, the owner of Sy. No. 97 sought to challenge the grant in favour of the petitioners by an appeal filed i.e., R.A. No. 47 of 1986-87. The appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), after hearing, was dismissed on 30-6-1988 as per Annexure-E. Respondents 5 to 14 were substituted as L.Rs of Krishna Reddy. Respondents 5 to 14 appealed under Section 50 of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No. 8 of 1988-89 which stood dismissed on merits on 15-7-1989 as per Annexure-F.2. Being aggrieved by the order Annexure-A and F, the petitioner filed Revision No. 156 of ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1829
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved is common. Validity of notifications dated September 23, 1998, November 9, 1998 and March 31, 1998 have been assailed in these writ petitions beside challenging the validity of Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979.2. Controversy is in respect of motor vehicles, parts and accessories and other goods from April 1, 1994 to January 6, 1998.Validity of Section 3(1) of the Act :3. Validity of Section 3(1) as amended by Act No. 8 of 1993 conferring power on the State Government to issue notification retrospectively or prospectively has been assailed on the ground that the assent of the President of India as required by proviso to Article 404(b) of the Constitution of India has not been received.4. Mr. R.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the judgments given by this Court in the case of Jyothi Home Industries . State of Karnataka [1987...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmavar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Kar)617; [1999]239ITR867(KAR); [1999]239ITR867(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. In these cases the assessment orders for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 have been assailed on the ground that the benefit of carry forward of loss had not been given.2. The assessee filed income-tax return declaring loss of Rs. 37,395.10 on September 30, 1988. An order under Section 143(1) was passed on February 27, 1989, that the return is late and hence the loss cannot be allowed to be carried forward. A revision was filed under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act pointing out that the loss declared in the return was only carry forward loss of the earlier years which has already been allowed and there is no loss declared in the relevant accounting year and the provisions of Section 139(3) and Section 139(10) are not applicable. The income for the assessment year 1988-89 was Rs. 4,11,340 and the total figure of loss to be carried forward up to 1987-88 was Rs. 41,50,850. The revision was rejected on the ground that the return was not filed within the time prescribed un...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Police, City of Bangalore Vs. R. Shankare Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR459; 1999(1)KarLJ163
1. The owners/occupiers of bar and restaurants in the City of Bangalore, the respondents herein, had filed applications before the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, for conducting live band music in their respective bar and restaurants under the provisions of the Licensing and Controlling of places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'Licensing Order'). The requests made were rejected by the Commissioner of Police vide various orders passed against the respondents on similar grounds as detailed in Annexure-D filed in W.A. Nos. 1446 to 1460 of 1998. The Licensing Authority found that as under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') and Rule 11 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called as the Licensing Rules) the respondents could not carry on any other activity in the licensed premises, where liquor is served, they were not entitled to the grant of licences. Aggrieved by the o...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Narayana Murthy Vs. K.N. Nanaveeth Guptha and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ496
ORDER1. By this petition prayer is made for appointment of arbitrator. The petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 are brothers. They entered into partnership in the name and style of Sangeetha Enterprises on 14-1-1994 (sic). Earlier the business of the firm was started with two partners i.e., the petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner and his brothers notified by their letter dated 21-4-1982 the first respondent and other partners, their intention to dissolve the firm with effect from 30-4-1982 by notice which was published in the Gazette dated 20-5-1982 and also in the Deccan Herald and Prajavani on the same day and thus the saidfirm stood dissolved with effect from 30-4-1982. The first respondent issued another public notice in Deccan Herald dated 3-6-1982 showing the retirement of the petitioner and his brothers from the said firm and as if the firm is not dissolved. Ultimately Civil Suit O.S. No. 2204 of 1982 was filed against respondents 1 to 3 and the deceased Srinivasa Mur...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Vairamudigowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ1
ORDER1. The present petition has been filed in public interest. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Prayer made is to direct respondent 2 to effect recovery of an amount of Rs. 18,89,280/- from the third respondent as arrears of land revenue. Grounds urged are the alleged inaction of respondent 1, resulting in huge loss of public revenue.2. Despite pendancy of the writ petition for over a period of 5 years, no statement of objections has been filed by any of the respondents.3. Heard.4. The unrebutted position of facts is that while respondent 3 was President of Town Municipal Council, Holenarasipura, he committed several irregularities in the administration of the Municipal Council and misappropriated huge amount belonging to the said Council. The aforesaid Municipal Council passed several resolutions requesting the Deputy Commissioner to recover the misappropriated amount of Rs. 18,89,280/- from the 3rd respondent, hut without any effe...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyappa Vs. V.R. Ramakrishna Rao and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1378; 1999(3)KarLJ22
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal dated 20th of November, 1986, the complainant herein filed Writ Petition No. 19658 of 1991, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 4-9-1996.2. The case of the complainant was that he had become occupancy tenant in respect of Sy. No. 7 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas of land excluding the kharab, situated at Hosahalli Gollarapalya, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The Land Tribunal granted him the occupancy rights, which was impugned by the land owners in Writ Petition No. 514 of 1978. After finding that no valid notice had been served upon the owner, this Court quashed the entire order passed in favour of the complainant and remitted the case back for fresh consideration. After affording the parties opportunity to put forth their contentions, the Chairman of the Land Tribunal vide his order dated 9-2-1986 passed an order in favour of the complainant holding that the entire extent of land was to be ...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore and Another ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ132
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This appeal has been filed along with I.A. I to condone the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. I.A. I and the appeal are taken up together for disposal.2. Chidananda Bhagoji who was working as peon in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division-cum-Judicial First Class), Gokak, Belgaum, died on 29th September, 1996 while in service leaving behind his widow and three minor children. Widow filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected on the ground that the family of the deceased had received in all a sum of Rs. 46,925/- (Rs. 22,800/-as death cum retirement gratuity, Rs. 4,125/- as leave salary and Rs. 20,000/- as group insurance) over and above Rs. 500/- per mensum as family pension. Appointment on compassionate grounds was denied by the authorities relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in R. V. Krishnappa v Karnataka Electricity Board.3. Aggrieved against the order passed by the authorities declining appointment on co...
Tag this Judgment!Kum. C.P. Prathima Devi Vs. Medical Council of India, New Delhi and Ot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: AIR2000Kant197; 2000(3)KarLJ505
ORDER1. The petitioner was admitted to M.B.B.S. Course in the respondent 2-Alameen Medical College, Bijapur, during the academic year 1995-96 through the Common Entrance Cell on 30-8-1995, According to her, subsequent to the said admission to the Course, she developed serious Kidney ailment and she is taking treatment with Dr. Dilip Javali, a Specialist at Bangalore, as also at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore under the Urologist and Physician of the said Hospital. The petitioner has passed her first M.B.B.S. examination on 13-5-1997. According to her, she has been advised to have further follow up treatment only at Bangalore, which has to be undertaken every week.2. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner made an application to the Medical Council of India (in short, 'MCI') on 24-9-1997 and again on 13-11-1997 seeking migration from respondent 2-Alameen College, Bijapur to respondent 3-Srec Siddartha Medical College, Tumkur, with no objection certificate from the Principal of th...
Tag this Judgment!State by Bidadi Police Station, Bangalore District Vs. S.B. Marigowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2171; ILR1999KAR1498; 2000(1)KarLJ163
ORDER1. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal dated 26-5-1993 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC., Ramanagaram, acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, CPI-PW. 3, Ramanagaram Circle, has filed the charge-sheet against this respondent (who shall be referred to hereinafter as 'accused'), for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.2. Deceased Madaiah is the brother of CW-2 by name Shivaji. On 5-4-1992 CW-2 along with his brother had come to Mudavadi cross in order to go over to Bidadi. It was at about 7.30 a.m. P.W. 1-Rajanna and P.W. 2-Rajgopal were also with them. At that time, the accused was driving his Matador bearing No. KA 11 651 and came from Ramanagaram side in high speed driven rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and at Mudavadi cross the driver suddenly overtook the lorry and came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against Mada...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »