Karnataka Court April 1998 Judgments
Satish Rice Industries Shikaripura, Shimoga District and Others Vs. St ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ346
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners and the writ appeals have been filed by the APMC and the petitioners who are Rice Millers having Licences under the provisions of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958, questioning the validity of the Marketing Committee constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (in short 'Marketing Act') levying the market fee on the rice.2. The first question that arose for consideration in these cases was:'Whether sale of rice by the Rice Millers to the State Government or its Agent by virtue of procurement order is a sale for the purpose of Section 65(2) of the Marketing Act'?The said question was referred to a Full Bench. The question was answered relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v State of Kerala1, wherein it was held that sale of rice by the Rice Millers to the State Government or its agents by virtue o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radhamma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant364; I(2000)DMC51; ILR1999KAR3239; 1998(4)KarLJ238
1. The brief facts leading to this appeal are B.K. Sridhara Murthy was an employee in the Controllerate of Inspection Electronics, Ministry of Defence, Bangalore as chargeman, Grade I. He died due to cardiac arrest on 3-9-1989 at Bangalore. The appellant is class I heir to the deceased B.K. Sridhara Murthy to claim the terminal benefits/assets left by her son B.K. Sridhara Murthy. She filed P & S.C. 3 of 1990 on the file of the 6th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan area, Bangalore City. She also arrayed Smt. S. Shylaja as 4th respondent as she claimed that she is the wife of the deceased and she is entitled for the share in terminal benefits and other assets of the deceased. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 who are employers of the deceased have not seriously contested the petition. However, the 4th respondent filed objections and she also claimed that she is entitled for share in the assets of the deceased. The learned Judge after assessing the evidence adduced ...
Tag this Judgment!The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2810; 1998(4)KarLJ439
ORDER1. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 5-2-1997, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Special Case No. 10 of 1997 directing to release the petitioners on bail.2. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner and the learned Advocates for the respondents.3. The brief facts of the case are that one Taj Mohammed and others were accused before the lower Court on the allegation that they were engaged in manufacture of Mandrex tablets at New Pathan Building,Pune-Bangalore Road, N.H, No. 4, Kakati Village, Belgaum, The said premises was searched on 7/8-11-1996 and the petitioners seized psychotropic substances as per the mahazar of that date. In the complaint, the respondents are shown as accused 2 to 8. After completing the investigation, the petitioner filed a charge sheet against the 10 accused persons treating accused 9 and accused 10 as absconding. Accused 1 to accused 8 were produced before Court. Subsequently, accused, 1 to accused 8 filed ap...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Pushpaleela Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ447
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In this petition filed by way of public interest litigation on behalf of the victims who have lost their eye-sights consequent upon the operations conducted in the Free Eye Camp at Chintamani during the year,1988, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay adequate compensation and all other medical facilities to the victims and to suitably rehabilitate them under any of the welfare schemes.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28th and 29th January, 1988 a Free Eye Camp was organised at Chintamani in Kolar District under the joint auspices of Lions Clubs of Chintamani and Bangalore and Common Wealth Society for the Blind, New Delhi. 151 persons were operated for cataract problem at Vasavi Kalyana Mandira and their list has been produced as Annexure-A in the connected W.P. No. 4351 of 1988 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26-5-1997. Among them, 72 persons had lost one eye-sight, 4 victims had lost both the eyes on accou...
Tag this Judgment!K. MohidIn Saheb Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: [2001]121STC445(Kar)
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Rule 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, against the order dated March 1, 1995 passed in T.A. No. 206 of 1987 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed in KST/ SMR/36-86-87 dated December 18, 1988, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore.2. The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of dry fish, fish manure and fish oil and registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Act. For the assessment year 1979-80, the assessing authority passed the assessment order on September 30, 1985. While passing the said assessment order, the assessing authority exempted the purchase value of fish oil made from unregistered dealers and sold in the course of export against H declaration forms. The assessing authority granted exemption on the ground that the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ananda Raj Vs. A. Crusoe Raj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4264
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether a Proprietor of an Engineering Works, who works with lathes and other machines, is an artisan whose tools are not liable for attachment under Section 60(1)(b) CPC. This contention having been negatived by the Executing Court, the judgment debtor has filed this revision under Section 115 CPC questioning the correctness of the order of the trial Court.2. The respondent herein obtained a money decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest and costs which was an expert decree. He sued out execution as the defendent failed to comply the decree. But the judgment debtor who entered appearance failed to file his objections. He has also failed to make payment in discharge of the decretal amount. Hence, an order of attachment of movables was ordered by the Trial Court. The movables were in fact attached and were brought before the Court for further proceedings. It was at that stage t...
Tag this Judgment!Balavant Basavant Mutakekar and anr. Vs. Siddalingappa Basappa Aragavi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3580
S.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J.1. In this second appeal the plaintiffs challenges the order of the first appellate Court refusing to grant possession and mandatory injunction prayed for and the direction that the plaintiffs are at liberty to take appropriate proceedings for recovery of the value of the encroached 6 guntas of land from the defendants.2. The parties are referred according to their array in the trial Court.3. The plaint schedule property is part of Sy.No.731/3 of Angol Village, Belgaum. Sy.No. 731/3 measuring 30 guntas was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and their uncle Nagappa Balappa Mutakekar. Long before 1948, the land was partitioned between the plaintiffs and the aforesaid Nagappa Balappa Mutakekar, each getting 15 guntas. The eastern 15 guntas was numbered as 731/3/2 belonging to the plaintiffs and the western 15 guntas was numbered as 731/3/1 in favour of Rakhavant Kaur Gurudayal singh who in turn sold the said land to the first defendant under a sale-deed dat...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sannaveeranna Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC359; 1999(1)KarLJ82
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This writ appeal is filed assailing the judgments of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition.2. The respondent 3 is an existing stage carriage operator in the District of Chitradurga. He applied for the grant of temporary stage carriage permit for the route Challakere to Davanagere and back to operate four single trips per day-via the interior places like Neralagunte, Nayakanahatti, Mustoor, Donehalli and Jagalur. The Regional Transport Authority in considering the said application passed detailed order on 6-2-1997. One of the operators challenged said order before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority reversed the order vide 27-10-1997. Aggrieved by that order the respondent 3 filed writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed to grant temporary permit for a period of 4 months and the same will be valid until the Road Transport Authority undertakes to run its own buses on the route for which temporary permits...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3396; 1998(4)KarLJ16
ORDER1. The brief facts leading to these two petitions are that the petitioners are running their video parlour in places mentioned in the petitions since several years. There video games are considered to be amusement show or business of amusement being run under the licence obtained from the Police Department. Even last year, they had made applications for renewal of their licence after a lapse of the time their licence was not renewed. Therefore, they had continued their business under the deemed licence as provided under sub-clause (8) of Clause 4 of the Licencing Order. It is further contended that they have installed costly machines and also engaged 8 to 10 workers at their shops. They also claim that video games business is their only source of income. Such business of video games are being carried on throughout the State and more particularly in Bangalore City. This Court also granted deemed orders in favour of Amruth A. Idnani. Therefore, they apprehend that the respondents/Po...
Tag this Judgment!Naushad Ali and Another Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Haveri and Ano ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: II(1998)ACC689; ILR1998KAR3051; 1998(4)KarLJ453
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. These two writ appeals are filed to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3-2-1998. Since common questions of law arise for consideration in both appeals and hence they are disposed of by a common judgement.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 3258 of 1998 i.e., Writ Appeal No.894 of 1998 is as follows.--The appellant the owner of the transport vehicle bearing registration No. NL 05/A 3978. The gross vehicle weight is 31,360 kgs as per the registration certificate. The Secretary, STAM, Bangalore Central has granted National permit dated 6-3-1997 in respect of the above said vehicle. On 11-9-1997 the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Haveri, checked the aforesaid vehicle. At the time of checking, the gross weight of vehicle was 28,810 kgs. The 2nd respondent initiated action against appellant for the offence of overloading the vehicle to the extent of 3,810 kgs. as the maximum laden weight fixed for the vehicle is on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »