Karnataka Court June 1998 Judgments
Karnataka Wine Merchants Association (Registered), Bangalore and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ612
ORDER1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved is common.2. The dispute is with regard to enhancement of the licence fee in respect of liquor under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968. An amendment was made in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the said rules by which the fee was enhanced in respect of different types of licensees. Rule 8-A was also inserted on 18-6-1998 providing additional licence fee. Rule 8-A reads thus:'8-A. Additional licence fee.--In respect of a licence granted under these rules an additional licence fee equivalent to fifteen per cent of the licence fee levied in respect of each kind of licence under Rule 8 shall be levied for a period of two years with effect from the First day of July, 1998 for the purpose of equity investment in the Karnataka Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation'.The notification dated 18-6-1998 enhancing the licence fee in respect of different catego...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Bhairu Bamane Vs. Syndicate Bank, Manipal, Nipani Branch and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas303(Kar); ILR1998KAR3028; 1998(5)KarLJ464
ORDER1. This is a judgment-debtor's revision petition, being aggrieved by the order passed rejecting I.A. No. V.2. The brief facts are as follows: The decree-holder Syndicate Bank filed O.S. No. 66 of 1979 to recover the amount due by the judgment-debtors. The suit was decreed on 31-7-1980. The Bank took out execution to recover the sum of Rs. 5,60,796.52 ps. and sought for the sale ofthe attached property. When the Bank filed necessary application to bid the mortgaged properties, this revision petitioner judgment-debtor filed I.A. No. V under Order 47, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Sections 114 and 151 of the CPC praying to review the order dated 19-11-1994 against permission granted to the decree-holder to participate in the bid on the ground that Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is a clear bar. The learned Judge of the Court below considering the contentions of the judgment-debtor by his order dated 17-3-1995 dismissed I.A. No. V. Being aggrieved of the said order h...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Narasimha Murthy Vs. the Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore and Ot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2596; 1998(5)KarLJ491
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of renewal of licence of excise in his premises by respondent 2 in favour of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner has claimed to be the owner of the premises and it is stated that the letter of no objection was given by him to the third respondent to obtain CL-2 licence to run liquor shop in the name of Maruthi Wine Depot and the licence was granted in 1985. A registered power of attorney was also executed in favour of the petitioner to run the business of Maruthi Wine Depot. There was no business carried on for the intervening period and on 6-1-1992 the petitioner has entered into an agreement with respondent 4 for running the shop for a period of four years. It is stated that the agreement dated 6-1-1992 came to an end in 1996 and therefore the respondents have no right to apply even for renewal of the licence, after that date. It is on the basis of the so-called conspiracy between respondents 3 and 4 licence is stated to have been gran...
Tag this Judgment!Channabasappa Vs. State by Arehally Police, Belur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4293; ILR1998KAR3574; 1998(6)KarLJ53
ORDER1. Petitioner is the owner, being the R.C. holder of Lorry No. KA 05 1194. The said vehicle has been seized under Section 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ('Act' for short) as a vehicle used in the commission of a forest offence in respect of a forest produce, and its seizure was reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate viz., learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belur. The petitioner sought for interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 17-12-1992, granted interim custody, on the petitioner executing a Bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety for like sum, subject to the condition that the vehicle shall be produced as and when called for, that the petitioner shall neither alienate nor shall alter the condition of the vehicle until disposal of the case. The respondent-State questioned this in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan in Cr. R.P. No. 54 of 1993. The learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 20-8-19...
Tag this Judgment!Netley b Estate, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3718; [1999]238ITR376(KAR); [1999]238ITR376(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The provisions of Section 26(4) and Explanation thereto of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax, 1957, have been assailed in all these writ petitions. Since the question involved is common, these petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. The provisions of Section 26(4) of the Act as they exist today were substituted by Act No. 18 of 1997 with effect from April 1, 1975, and are reproduced hereunder :'(4) Where any business through which agricultural income is received by a company, firm or association of persons is discontinued or any such firm or association is dissolved in any year, any sum received after the discontinuance or dissolution shall be deemed to be income of the recipient and charged to tax accordingly in the year of receipt if such sum would have been included in the total income of the person who carried on the business had such sum been received before such discontinuance or dissolution.Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby de...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Wine Merchants and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3285
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.All these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved is common.2. The dispute is with regard to enhancement of the licence fee in respect of liquor under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules 1968. An amendment was made in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the said Rules by which the fee was enhanced in respect of different types of licensees. Rule 8A was also inserted on 18.6.1998 providing additional licence fee. Rule 8A reads thus:'8A. Additional licence fee.-In respect of a licence granted under these rules an additional licence fee equivalent to fifteen percent of the licence fee levied in respect of each kind of licence under Rule 8 shall be levied for a period of two years with effect from the first day of July, 1998 for the purpose of equity investment in the Karnataka Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation.' The notification dated 18.6.1998 enhancing the licence fee in respect of differen...
Tag this Judgment!State by Bangarpet Police Vs. Ambati Murali Mohan Rao and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4526; II(1999)DMC422; ILR1999KAR1676; 1998(5)KarLJ357
ORDER1. The only question that arises in this revision petition under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code is as to whether Section 240, Criminal Procedure Code permits an accused to answer the charge through his Counsel.2. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, has formed an opinion that, there is a ground presuming that the accused in the case, including the present two respondents, have committed offences punishable under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. What remains is, framing of the charge and to read it over and to explain to the accused and to ask the accused whether they plead guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as required by Section 240, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magi...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mahadeva Prabhu Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2992; 1998(6)KarLJ121
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing of the resolution passed against him expressing no confidence by the members of the Taluk Panchayat.2. The case of the petitioner is, the total elected members of the taluk panchayat is 26. Under Section 140 of the Panchayath Raj Act, Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall be denied to have vacated his office if a resolution for want of confidence in him is passed by the majority of total number of members at a meeting specially convened. In the case on hand, the total elected members are 26; whereas 13 members have expressed no confidence against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, 13 does not represent the majority from among the total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat. Four members of the Taluk Panchayat were disqualified by the Election Commissioner on the ground that they have violated the whip issued. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. This Court dismissed the said writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Moulasab (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others Vs. Moulasab and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2870; 1998(5)KarLJ676
ORDER1. The petitioners' learned Advocate contended that the revenue records consistently support the petitioners' contention that respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to only 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy. No. 84/5 and that as far as the extent of 6 acres is concerned that the occupancy rights have wrongly been granted. He referred to several documents which I refrain from reproducing here because even though, after three remands the Tribunal has gone into an elaborate narration with regard to the material produced and the contentions raised by the two sides, there is no proper reasoning nor is there any proper basis for the conclusion arrived at.2. The learned Advocate who represents respondents 1 and 2 submitted that his clients have produced a host of documents in support of their plea that they are entitled to occupancy rights in respect of the whole of the Survey Numbers and his contention was that no interference is called for. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that despite th...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumar Jalan Vs. Syndicate Bank, Mangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3139; 1998(6)KarLJ150
ORDER1. The petitioner is the auction purchaser. The first respondent is the decree-holder. The second respondent is the judgment-debtor.2. The petitioner-auction purchaser has filed this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-1995 passed by the Court of Principal Munsiff, Mangalore, in Misc. No. 89 of 1989 in Execution Case No. 98 of 1988.3. The facts very briefly are: The second respondent had borrowed some money from the bank and she was unable to repay the same. The first respondent-Bank filed a suit and obtained a decree in S.C. No. 122 of 1981. The bank filed an Execution Petition No. 98 of 1988 and brought for sale the property alleged to have been held by the second respondent. Auction was held on 28-11-1989. The petitioner made his bid at the said auction. He was declared as the successful bidder. On the same day, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.7,650/- being one-fourth of the sale amount. On enquiry, the auction purchaser found that on the date of sale, the seco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »