Karnataka Court June 2000 Judgments
S.H. Abbas Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC177
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. Mr. B.H. Satish, learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.2. Heard both the learned Counsels.3. The petitioner who is the operator of a stage carriage vehicle under a valid permit had made an application before the 2nd respondent seeking replacement of the existing vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 14/2404 with a fresh vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 15/6669, which came to be rejected by 2nd respondent vide his order dated 11.5.2000 as per Annexure-C, that order when challenged before first respondent-Appellate Tribunal came to be confirmed by its judgment dated 3.6.2000 passed in Appeal No. 411 of 2000 on its file, vide Annexure-D. Aggrieved by orders at Annexure-C and D, the petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the same in this writ petition.4. Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', in short) for replacement of the vehicle reads thus:83. Replacement of vehicles-The holder of a permit may,...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Baliga Exports (Private) Limited, Udupi Vs. the Additional Chief ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT321(Kar); 2001(3)KarLJ1
1. This judgment shall dispose of W.A. Nos. 7973 and 7974 of 1999 filed by the writ petitioner-appellant and W.A. Nos. 1914 and 1915 of 2000 filed by the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports-respondent in the original writ petition, along with I.A. No. 1 to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the judgment and LA. 2 to condone-the delay in filing the appeals. As all these appeals are directed against the impugned order passed in W.P. Nos. 29189 and 29190 of 1999, dated 3rd of November, 1999 the writ appeals have been clubbed together and disposed'of by passing a common order. Reference to the appellants and respondents in the writ appeals would be referred to by their original status in the writ petition as the writ petitioner and respondents respectively for the sake of convenience.2. The facts giving raise to the appeals briefly stated are as follows:Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, having its regis...
Tag this Judgment!Hasam Khan Alias Hasim Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ106
ORDER1. I have heard the learned Advocates who represent the various contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate who represents the Land Tribunal and the State, on merits.2. The short controversy that has been very vigorously contested in these writ petitions is with regard to the question as to whether Abdul and Hasam Khan who claim to be sons of deceased Abdul Khader and Ameenabi are in fact the legal heirs of Abdul Khader. The issue gets rather complicated because Ameenabi was earlier married to one Has-san Miya and the contention raised before the Tribunal was to the effect that her marriage was not dissolved and that consequently, her contention that she was lawfully married to Abdul Khader thereafter is not liable to be upheld. There are several complicated issues that arise in this case which revolve around two main questions, the first being as to whether the earlier marriage was dissolved and if so validly and if not, what is the effect thereof and secondly, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lalitha Nagappa Naik Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, Uttara ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ92
1. This appeal involves an important question of law pertaining to the application of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition on Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 (in short, the 'S.C.S.T. Act') to lands which had been acquired by a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as an occupant under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short, the 'K.L.R. Act').2. The present dispute pertains to Survey No. 375/1A1 measuring 11 guntas of Hegde Village, Kumta Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. The facts giving rise to the above question are all admitted. One Sri Bete Yanku Mukhri, being a member of Scheduled Tribe, had acquired occupancy rights in respect of the land in question under Section 45 read with 48A of the K.L.R. Act. On 23-7-1996, he sold the land to one Sri Raghavendra Kamat. On 8-5-1997, the present appellant purchased the land from the said Raghavendra Kamat. The Assistant Commissioner, having learnt about the said transfer...
Tag this Judgment!D. Dasappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1373; 2001(2)KarLJ282
ORDER1. On the complaint of the second respondent-Labour Inspector, the petitioner has been prosecuted before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, at C.C. No. 20975 of 1997 for offences punishable under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 20 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 ('Act' for short). The first order of the learned Magistrate in the matter of issuing summons to the petitioner-accused reads thus.-'Perused. Cognizance taken. Register the case and issue SS to accused by 25-8-1997'.On the summons being served, when the petitioner-accused remained absent, the learned Magistrate issued NBW. It was then that, on behalf of the petitioner-accused, his Counsel filed an application under Section 253 of the Cr. P.C., praying for permission for the said learned Counsel to plead guilty, on behalf of the petitioner-accused. The learned Magistrate, by the order impugned in this revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C., observed that, since NBW was pendin...
Tag this Judgment!A. Byanna Vs. Ramakrishnappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ28
ORDER1. Heard Mr. G.B.. Manjunath, learned Counsel for petitioner, The learned Counsel for respondent 1 was not present and therefore the Court could not have the advantage of his reply. The other respondents though served have remained absent.2. The petitioner is defendant 1 in O.S, No. 542 of 1997 on the file of the Court below, who has questioned the correctness and validity of the Trial Court's order dated 24-1-1998 passed on the objection raised by the defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain the said suit and proceed with its trial.3. The said O.S. No. 542 of 1997 is filed in the Court below by the respondent 1-plaintiff against petitioner and respondents 2 to 8 arraying them as defendants 1 to 8, respectively, for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property which is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 78/1 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas shown as situate in Horamavu Agara Village of K.R. Puram Hobli in Bangalore South Talu...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.N. Chawan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4841; 2001(2)KarLJ80
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation questioning the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages from the date of the reference, though it was conclusively found that the respondent who was employed as a driver, had consumed liquor and was found to be in drunken state while on duty. 2. On 9-8-1992, the respondent was put on duty for driving the Corporation's bus bearing No. MYF 9399 which was to proceed from Athani to Gangapur. When the bus was about to take its departure, a puncture was noticed in its rear wheel. Therefore, it was taken to Athani Depot for repairs. The respondent, after parking the bus at the depot, suddenly disappeared by deserting the bus. Nonetheless, the bus was repaired within half an hour and was taken to the bus stand by the depot mechanic. After some time, the respondent-driver appeared in a drunken state. The passengers, on...
Tag this Judgment!Ninge Gowda Vs. Regional Transport Officer and the Registering Authori ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ277
ORDER1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner who was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 19/A-7557 has approached this Court by this writ petition seeking to quash the order per Annexure-C, dated 18-2-2000 of the first respondent-R.T.O. which reads as follows: 'Fresh R.C. issued in the name of the Financier on 23-2-2000. As per the provision of Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 61(3) of the CMV Rules, 1989 in the name of the Shri Ram Transport Finance Corporation Limited No. 1952/3, I Floor, Kothwal Ramaiah Street, Mysore, R.C. No. 127189, w.e.f. 23-2-2000'.3. Admittedly, the petitioner acquired the possession of the said vehicle under an arrangement of hire-purchase agreement between himself and respondent 2, When he became a defaulter in the payment of monthly instalments in respect of the price of the said vehicle, respondent 1 was moved by respondent 2 under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the 'Act') to cancel...
Tag this Judgment!K. Channaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2572; 2000(5)KarLJ390
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Jayakumar Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General, the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Issue rule.3. The petitioners are not only members but also candidates for the election to the Committee of the Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank (2nd respondent). The petitioners in this writ petition challenge the order of the Government, dated 15-3-2000 at Annexure-D and the Corrigendum dated 15-3-2000.4. A notification at Annexure-D and a corrigendum of the same date was issued by the Government of Karnataka. A perusal of the English translation of the impugned notifications indicate that the Government had exercised powers under Section 30B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to issue the impugned notifications.5. It would be appropriate at this stage to deal with Section 30B of the Act (Karnataka State Act 13 of 2000). Section 30B gives certain power to the S...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Kasturi and Sons Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2995; [2000]120STC564(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This revision petition under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') is filed by the State. The respondent is a registered dealer under the Act. It is engaged in the business of printing and selling of newspapers. For the assessment year 1995-96, an order of assessment was made by the assessing authority on January 12, 1998. Under the said order, the turnover relating to 'waste paper', i.e., cut waste paper, reel paper, rubbish paper and printed waste paper, was subject to tax as unscheduled goods under Section 5(1) of the Act, the rate of tax being 10 per cent.2. Feeling aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore City Division-I, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate authority'). The assessing authority relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kores (India) Ltd. : [1977]1SCR837 , wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »