Karnataka Court June 1999 Judgments

Chikkarangaiah and Others Vs. State by Chief Secretary to Government o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ178

ORDER1. Though the matter is posted for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, the same is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.2. These petitions are preferred by five petitioners who want to challenge the grant of lands made as early as on 8-12-1978 for a public purpose viz., establishment of Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Limited.2-A. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate as well as by the respondent that the allotment of land at the first instance was made as early as on 8-12-1978. In fact the grant was for 30 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 22 and 80 of Kadabagere, and the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka is to the following effect.-'Order No. RD 307 LGB 78, Bangalore dated 8-12-1978After considering the above proposal, Government are pleaded to accord sanction for the grant of land measuring 30 acres viz., 10.00 acres of land in S. No. 22 and 20 acres of land in S. No. 80 of Kadabagere Village, Nelamangala Taluk in favour of the Hindustan A...

Dr. Nanjundaiah Vs. the Registrar and Returning Officer, Rajiv Gandhi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR4676; 1999(4)KarLJ357

ORDER1. Since the questions raised in these petitions are same and identical, both these petitions are taken up together for final disposal and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts in these petitions are not in dispute. For the purpose of convenience, the facts set out in Writ Petition No. 1027 of 1999 is set out.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1027 of 1999, is a Professor of Physiology working in Bangalore Medical College. In this petition, he has called in question the correctness of the notification dated 5th of January, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, issued by the second respondent. In notification Annexure-A, the second respondent has directed that the enrollment of teachers in the published electoral roll of the constituencies relating to Professors and teachers should be examined and thereafter, the electoral rolls should be corrected. It is further directed in the said notification that the election scheduled to be held on 18th of January...

Smt. Ningamma Vs. Siddaramu and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ673

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. Shivappa and Sri Ravishankar holding brief for Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 as well as Sri V. Jayaram, learned Government Counsel for respondents 4 and 5.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the land in question was granted in favour of one Boraiah, as per petitioner's case, on 19-12-1954 and the title deed issued in favour of Boraiah contained a condition of prohibition against alienation for a period of ten years i.e., clause (8) of the deed. I may make it clear that I am not interpreting, but I only state the fact as stated by the petitioner. Petitioner claimed title on the basis of sale deed dated 27-4-1966 alleged to have been executed in favour of the petitioner and his son by the grantee. In proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979), the Assistant Commissioner d...

A. Keshava Bhat Vs. Ito and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Kar)420

ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.The order of the Commissioner, dated 18-3-1992, has been challenged in this writ petition. A penalty of Rs. 2,000 was levied on the petitioner on account of non-maintenance of books of accounts as it is stipulated under section 44AA for the assessment year 1991-92. On appeal, it was found that the gross receipt from the profession exceeds Rs. 60,000 in one of the preceding three years and books of accounts have to maintained. The contention that the petitioner was not in a position to expend money for appointment of an accountant or that there was a reasonable cause which was not relied. The Commissioner upheld the penalty as the mere fact of filing the returns voluntarily was held not absolving the petitioner from statutory obligation.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in accordance with section 273B of the Act, the penalty cannot be levied if the petitioner is able to prove that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. Section 271A of t...

State by City Police Station, Hassan Vs. Basavaraju Alias Basava

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. We have perused the record of this case and heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on merits. The reason for this is because the Police report indicates that the accused is not traceable either in Hassan or even in the adjoining districts. As far as the merits are concerned, the filing of the appeal was fully justified and so are the submissions of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor which are to the effect that even if the statements attributed to the accused were to be discarded, that the possession of the identifiable stolen property was alone sufficient for a conviction in the absence of any valid explanation from the accused. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor therefore submitted that further efforts should be made to trace out the accused. It is our experience that once a certain time has elapsed andthe accused is not found in a particular area, that it is impossible to trace his whereabouts and therefore, the retention of the appeal o...

Putta Chamaiah Vs. the State

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999CriLJ4356

M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a Jail appeal.2. The facts of this case are both distressing and gruesome. They are most distressing because the prosecution contends that the accused assaulted the deceased Chamaiah with a knife- M.O. 1 and that he virtually sat on the chest of the deceased and cut his throat, the reason for all this being a petty loan of Rs. 100/-. The wife of the deceased P.W. 1 Mahadevamma had contended that half the loan amount had earlier been repaid and had even offered. to pay the balance amount despite which the incident took place. The prosecution alleges that it was a ruthless and brutal assault virtually because the poverty stricken Chamaiah was unable to repay that paltry amount. The incident took place on 9-4-1992 at about 1.15 p.m. at Honnur village. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by the wife P.W. 1 Mahadevamma, the son P.W. 6 Ningaraju and a neighbour P.W. 2 Mahadevaiah all of whom claim to be eye-witnesses and who have been examined by the pr...

R. Balaji Singh Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Watch Factory I a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR3725; 2000(1)KarLJ447

ORDERR. V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant was an employee of the first respondent. He resigned from service on 31-1-1989. In regard to certain claims and demands of the workmen, there were series of negotiations resulting in an agreement relating to revision of wages and other issues on 5-5-1989 (Annexure-B). Thereafter conciliation proceedings were initiated and after further discussions, a settlement was arrived at under conciliation proceedings as per memorandum of settlement under Sections 12(3) and 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short), dated 7-7-1989 (Annexure-I). Under the said conciliation settlement, the pay scales were revised with retrospective effect from 1-1-1987.2. Clause 6 read with Annexure-I to the settlement agreement dated 7-7-1989 contained the new wage structure effective from 1-1-1987. Clause 9 (corresponding to Clause 10 of the Agreement dated 5-5-1989) provided that all workmen who were on the rolls of the company as on 1-1-1987 and who co...

Smt. Lalithamma and Another Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2000Kant41; ILR1999KAR3710; 1999(6)KarLJ215

Acts/Rules/Orders:Karnataka Municipal Corporation act, 1976 - Sections 103 and 147;Taxation Rules - Schedule III - Rule 20;Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 265Cases Referred:Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536;Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Karnataka State Transport Authority and Another, 1984(1) Kar. L.J. 552, AIR 1984 Kant. 4JUDGEMENTV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The facts and question of law involved in these writ appeals are common. Hence both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are the owners of properties in Bangalore. The annual rental value of their properties has been revised by the respondent-Corporation after inviting objections. Aggrieved by the same they have filed appeals before the Taxation Appeals Committee. The same were disposed of without assigning any reasons by issuing endorsements. Aggrieved by the same the appellants filed writ petitions. The learned Single J...

Micro Labs Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Kar)148; [2001]247ITR333(KAR); [2001]247ITR333(Karn); [2001]115TAXMAN27(Kar)

R.V. Raveendran J.1. The appellants were the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 32450 to 32454 of 1997 (see : [1998]231ITR934(KAR) ), respectively. For convenience, the appellants in the five appeals will be referred to as appellants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ; that is Micro Labs Ltd. as appellant No. 1, Micro Ethicals as appellant No. 2, Micro Nova Pharmaceutical Ltd., as appellant No. 3, Brown and Burk Pharmaceuticals as appellant No. 4 and G. C. Surana as appellant No. 5.2. The appellants claim that appellants Nos. 1 to 4 have a common office. Appellant No. 5 is a director of appellants Nos. 1 to 3 and authorised signatory of appellant No. 4. It is stated that there was a search in respect of appellants Nos. 1 to 3 by issue of notice under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the IT Act' for short), on September 10, 1997, and in the course of the search, some records of appellants Nos. 1 to 4 had been seized ; that prohibitory orders were issued in regard to certain bank accounts and certai...

AhmadhussaIn GousmohaddIn Peerajade Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2000Kant43; ILR1999KAR3582; 1999(6)KarLJ63

ORDER1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arises from the order dated 23-2-1993 passed by the 1st respondent-The Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum District, Belgaum, in No. RB.KDR.RA. 1 of 1992-93, whereby the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order dated 9-7-1992 passed by the Taluk Executive Magistrate, Gokak, in the matter of proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980. The Taluk Executive Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the debtor has not appeared before him and held that the applicant before him failed to make out a case that he is a debtor. 2. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 9-7-1992 of the Taluk Executive Magistrate the respondent filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum. The Deputy Commissioner observed that it is an undisputed fact that the applicant before him i.e., the father of respondents 3 to 5 borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- some time in the year 1969, in lieu of the said tr...