Karnataka Court March 1998 Judgments

B. Shivanna Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant336; 1998(4)KarLJ276

ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the impugned letter dated 29-5-1996, issued by the Secretary, Housing Development, Government of Karnataka and has sought quashing of impugned notice dated 2nd of July, 1996, bearing Reference No. BDA-4 : MUB : 165 : 96-97, issued by the first respondent, B.D.A., Bangalore. The petitioner has also sought the setting aside of the allotment of site,to the third respondent, of schedule property i.e., Site bearing No. 165, situated at Matadahalli Further Extention Layout and for grant of such other writ, order or direction, as the Court deems fit.2. This petition has been filed by a former holder of the Constitutional Office of the Minister-Sri B. Shivanna. No doubt third respondent is also the former holder of the Constitutional Office of the Minister, in the Government of Karnataka. Petitioner has described himself in the petition as a Form...

M. Ajay Babu and Others Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant255; ILR1998KAR2035; 1998(3)KarLJ436

1. As these appeals required urgent hearing, they are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with consent of both sides.2. Appellants were the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 564 to 688 of 1998, who have filed these appeals against the order dated 27-1-1998 of the learned Single Judge passed dismissing their petitions.3. Appellants were students of second respondent-Sharavathi Dental College, Shimoga. They were admitted in this college for the academic year 1996-97 to four year Bachelor of Dental Sciences Course ('BDS course' for short). On completing theirfirst year study of the said course and on satisfying the required criteria they were allowed to take the first year BDS examination conducted in September 1996-97 by respondent 1-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore (the 'University' for short). The results were announced by the University declaring them failed, since they were found to have failed in one or more subjects of their examination when the marks sec...

Smt. Hambamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant91; ILR1999KAR261; 1998(3)KarLJ688

Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. This batch of writ appeals are filed assailing the orders of the learned Single Judge. In all the appeals, the questions arise for consideration is the same. 2. The brief facts are that certain lands were granted to different persons on the ground that they are cultivating Government lands as lessees on temporary lease, by virtue of Rule 43-J of the Mysore (now Karnataka) Land Revenue Rules of 1960. After the grant of permanent Saguvali Chits, they alienated the lands to third parties. In some of the cases they were further alienated. Thereafter the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 came into force. (The said Act will hereinafter be referred to as 'Karnataka Act 2 of 1979'). It came into force on 1-1-1979. Section 4 of the Act envisages that any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of the Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law provid...

Malik L. Kapadia and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ550

ORDER1. Since the questions of law urged in these petitions are common and the facts are fairly similar, all these petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners, in these petitions, are the owners of various items of lands/sites situated at Hyderali Road, Nazarbad Mohalla, Chamundi Vihar, Mysore. 3. In these petitions, they have prayed for quashing the notification dated 29th of April 1997 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 read with sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A copy of the said notification has been produced as Annexure-H in Writ Petition Nos. 14745 to 14747 of 1997. 4. Lands in all measuring 8130.62 sq. mtrs., are sought to be acquired by the respondents for the purpose of 'Sports Complex' known as 'Chamundi Vihar Sports Complex' situated at Mysore, It is not in dispute that a Sports Complex has already been established and the lands in question are sit...

D. Victor Vs. L. Sundaram (Deceased) by L.Rs.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ501

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal, from the judgment and decree dated 5-1-1987 passed by the I Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No. 1501 of 1982, Mr. D. Victor v Mr. L. Sundaram, claiming for declaration of title and possession and mesne profits whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff's claim in toto.2. The plaintiff's case as per plaint allegations is that he is the absolute owner of house property No. 40 situated in Sy. No. 106 of Kodihalli, within the jurisdiction of H.A.L. Sanitary Board, Bangalore SouthTaluk. The plaintiff claims that he purchased the site in dispute namely No. 40 in Sy. No. 106, Kodihalli, now bearing No. 57, Postal No. 57, Murugeshpalyam, Bangalore-70 by a registered sale deed dated 13-11-1972. The plaintiff's case is that, plaintiff out of his self earned money constructed the house on the said site No. 40. After the construction of the house by the plaintiff, the plaintiff along with his father late. Sri David and Robinson his ...

C. Venkata Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1999]236ITR895(KAR); [1999]236ITR895(Karn)

V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 269UA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with regard to a definition of 'apparent consideration' as given under Section 269UA(b)(1)(i). Sub-clause (1) contemplates that where the whole or any part of the consideration for such transfer is payable on any date or dates falling after the date of such agreement for transfer, the value of the consideration payable after such date shall be deemed to be the discounted value of such consideration, as on the date of such agreement for transfer, determined by adopting such rate of interest as may be prescribed in this behalf. Rule 48-I has prescribed the interest at eight per cent, per annum.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement on July 20, 1989, which was for the consideration of Rs. 42 lakhs. The time stipulated for the completion of sale transaction was 10 months from the date of the agreement to sell. The statement in Form No. 37-1 dated July 31, 1989, w...

Wipro Infotech Limited Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercia ...

Court: Karnataka

G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The appellant-company is owning medium scale industrial units located at plot No. 146, Belogola Industrial Area, Metagalli and plot No. 312, Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysore, which are registered with the Government of India vide CIL/145/88, dated June 20, 1988 for manufacture of computers and computer peripherals at Belogola and Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysore.2. Admittedly, Expansion modernisation was carried out in the aforesaid industrial units twice during the financial year 1993-94 which are evidenced by the certificates dated September 27, 1993 (annexure 'B') and February 21, 1994 (annexure 'C') issued by the Joint Director (ID). As per the said certificates, the investments made in expansion are to the following effect :--I. Certificate No. IDF/E2/ST/27/92-93, dated September 27, 1993 Rs. 86,29,000-00II. Certificate No. IDF/E2/ST/115/92-93, dated February 21, 1994 Rs. 2,12,19,000-00 __________________ Total .... Rs. 2,98,48,000-00 __________________3. At the ti...

Vijaya Bank, Farahatabad, District Gulbarga Vs. Revanashiddappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ537

1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit for declaration that the seizure of the tractor is illegal and unauthorised and for a mandatoryinjunction against the defendant to release the tractor, was decreed by the Courts below and the defendant-Bank is before this Court. I wonder as to how the suit is maintainable. Under the Law of Hypothecation, if a property is hypothecated, it is open to the person who lends to proceed against the property hypothecated and there cannot be any injunction restraining exercise of a right flowing out of a contract especially on hypothecation.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon interim order passed by this Court. But that interim order was passed on humanitarian ground and equitable consideration that the tractor and trolley are absolutely essential for carrying on agricultural operations and only on that consideration a direction was given to release the tractor on some conditions. That does not mean that the Bank has no right to seize...

Rathanakar M. Shetty Vs. House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Nort ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR3694; 1998(3)KarLJ1

G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The facts of the present case is possibly one of the most telling examples of criminal maneuvering masterminded by the concerned officers, middle men and the beneficiaries in depriving the owners of their properties by flouting all norms set by way of constitutional guarantees, statutory safeguards and natural justice requirements. Possibly flooded with such atrocious acts on the part of the officers, of the State Government, quite advisedly, came out with the notification dated 24-4-1995 making the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 10-A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') inapplicable within the limits of Bangalore city and are within a radius of three kilometres from the limits thereof.2. Here is a case where, as the facts will reveal hereinafter, the contesting respondent 3 with the help of the area revenue inspector and the police force had, by breaking open the locks forcibly, occupied the property of the appellant on the strength of a...

M/S. Sri Venkataram and Company, Shimoga Vs. State of Karnataka and Ot ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant288; ILR1998KAR1637; 1998(3)KarLJ47

G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The short question involved in this appeal is as to whether the resolution dated 26-2-1993 passed by the respondent-Agricultural Produce Market Committee purporting to cancel the allotment/sale of Site No. 9 in Block 'H', measuring 60' x 120' of Sy. No. 1 in Srigandha Kavalu, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga City, being the notified market yard, can be held to be legally permissible on the part of the said Market Committee. Since the learned Single Judge by his impugned order has answered the said question in the affirmative, therefore, the present appeal by the writ petitioner.2. The respondent-Market Committee has been established under Section 9 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (in short 'the APMC Act') having the jurisdiction over the entire market area of Shimoga. It is now an accomplished fact that as provided under the provisions of the Act the said Market Committee has been established for ensuring better regulation of buying and se...