Karnataka Court March 2001 Judgments
S.N. Chinappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3940
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioners have questioned the endorsements dated 9-10-2000 and 19-10-2000 respectively issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, wherein he has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to allow them to continue their business carried on by them by virtue of CL-9 Licence.2. The petitioners after obtaining licence under CL-9 have been running the bar and restaurants at the respective places. It appears, a show-cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioners to shift their business premises to any other non-objectionable place. According to the authorities, the business of the petitioners are situated at a distance of 71 metres from Gnana Deepika School which is under construction.3. The petitioners also filed applications for renewal of their licence for the excise year 2000-2001 which applications were allowed by the authorities, permitting the petitioners to carry on the business for a period of three months commencing from 1-7-2000. However, they collected t...
Tag this Judgment!Geogy Mathew Vs. the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet Division, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant404; 2001(5)KarLJ510
ORDERThe Court1. In this writ petition, the petitioner who claims to be the owner of lands, in all measuring about 80 acres in several survey numbers situated at Cheluvara and Marundudu Villages of Madikeri Taluk, and who claims to be cultivating coffee in these lands has sought for the following reliefs in the writ petition:'(a) Issue a writ of declaration, declaring non-communication of the decision of the Tree Officer on the application of the petitioner made on 26-3-1996 after lapse of period of one year i.e., by 26-3-1997 in accordance with the provisions of clause (4) of Section 8 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, there is a deemed permission in accordance with the application made by the petitioner and since there is a deemed permission to fell 1,200 trees terming of the felling of 112 trees in excess of 557 as unauthorised, is illegal and unsustainable. (b) Issue a writ of declaration declaring that insistence of payment of the value of the trees and collection thereo...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Reddy Vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture-cum-seed Inspector, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)KarLJ426
ORDER1. All these petitions filed by the different petitioners pertain to the prosecution of the petitioners for committing an offence punishable under Section 19-A of the Seeds Act, 1966 by Assistant Director of Agriculture and Seed Inspector. The respondent checked the seeds which were in the possession of the petitioners. After taking samples sent one of the samples to the Seed Analyst for examination. After receipt of the Analyst's report, filed private complaint before the respective Judicial Magistrates First Class. After taking cognizance, the Magistrates concerned have issued summons to the accused/petitioners who have appeared before the Trial Court and proceedings are pending making a little progress in the matter. The petitioners in the present petition have now challenged the very institution and continuation of the proceedings as being illegal.2. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 16 have not been complied with. For convenien...
Tag this Judgment!Munesh Vs. Smt. Anasuyamma Alias Parvathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant355; ILR2001KAR3459
Tilhari, J. 1. This petition under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed in this appeal, namely, M.F.A. No. 526 of 2000. 2. In the nutshell, the appellant filed a petition for divorce against the respondent Smt. Anasuyamma alias Parvathi with the allegations to the effect, that 'the wife Parvathi, had deserted the husband without any cause under Section 13(1)(1-B), i.e. with the allegations and on the ground, that the respondent (spouse) has for a continuous period of more than two years deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause and without any consent or wish of the petitioner. 3. The trial Court on consideration of the material on record, has recorded a finding to the effect, that present respondent wife in the divorce petition who, as also respondent in the divorce petition, has got justifiable cause to withdraw from the Society of the husband, i.e. the petitioner and to stay separately from him. That the petitioner-appellant failed to prove dese...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sharadabai and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ456
1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is filed by the owners of the agricultural lands whose lands came to be acquired by the State Government, for the public purpose viz., Karanja Irrigation Project.2. The appellants owned different extents of lands, totally 2 acres 25 guntas in Sy. No. 80/3 and 4 of Kasartugaon Village, Bhalki Taluk, Bidar District.3. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-2-1999 and award dated 17-2-1999, passed in L.A.C. No. 209 of 1998, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhalki, in fixing the compensation in respect of the acquired lands at Rs. 30,140-00 per acre, have preferred this appeal claiming that compensation should have been fixed at a rate not lesser than Rs. 38,410-00 per acre.4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in Bidar had awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000-00 per acre taking into consideration the average sales statistics fixed on the lands of the said village for the period of 1990-93. However, in the ref...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Vaman Pishe Vs. State by Terdal Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3568; 2002(5)KarLJ605
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the unfortunate victim of the crimes punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. M.Os. 1 to 16 which are valuable gold and silver jewellery along with other valuable articles were subject of theft. About seven accused were named as offenders in the crime. In the instant case, four accused faced trial and they were acquitted. Against the remaining accused, the case was split up. C.C. No. 219 of 1999 in which the impugned order is passed is the case relating to a trial against accused 4 in the original case, who was absconding. Later on, arrested and trial is held. The case against accused 5 and 6 is split up, who are shown as accused 2 and 3 in the present case. All the accused, who have faced the trial are acquitted.2. The Trial Court in the final order made a conditional order of the delivery of the property to the interim custody of the petitioner imposing the condition that the petitioner shall not alter the pattern, design and comp...
Tag this Judgment!Venkamma and ors. Vs. B. Babu Poojary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR2708; 2002(1)KarLJ227
ORDERThe Court 1. In this revision petition filed under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order dated 30th April, 1988 made in L.R.A.A. No. 463 of 1988 passed by the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority'), confirming the order dated 16th August, 1976 made in No. LRY/15/74-75 by the Land Tribunal, Belthangady (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), granting occupancy rights in favour of the deceased first respondent-late Babu Poojary 2. Few facts, which are not in serious dispute and which are relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder: (a) The first petitioner is the mother and petitioners 2 to 8 and respondent 4, one Chandrashekar Bhangera are the children of the first petitioner-Venkamma. The subject-matter of dispute in this petition is land measuring...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. K. Ambaji Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Kar)467; [2001]250ITR277(KAR); [2001]250ITR277(Karn); [2002]120TAXMAN227(Kar)
ORDERSustainabilityCatch Note:Incumbent upon the authority which interferes with a well considered or well reasoned order and substitutes it with a contrary one, to fully justify the grounds on which the interference is called for and to independently justify the new conclusions that have been recorded.Application:Also to current assessment year.Decision:In favour of assessee.Income Tax Act 1961 s.254 ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gautam Investments (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Kar)78; [2001]250ITR324(KAR); [2001]250ITR324(Karn); [2002]120TAXMAN178(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the appellant's learned counsel who has assailed the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. His principal submission proceeds on the footing that the cryptic finding recorded by the Tribunal is unjustified in law. In defence of the Tribunal's order learned senior counsel Mr. Sarangan submitted that in a given situation where the principles of law are well defined and where the Tribunal is of the opinion that the appellate order does not require interference, whether the Tribunal would be justified in disposing of the appeal through a short summary order.2. We do not propose to comment about the latter submission made by learned counsel which may be valid in certain cases, but we need to observe here that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and that if the Tribunal goes wrong, as we have found in case after case wherein the amount of the Revenue involved is also substantial, the Department is virtually left with almost no remedy ; a referen...
Tag this Judgment!Puthu and anr. Vs. Abubakkar Alias Chayya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3581
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao J.1. The petitioner is directed to implead the State. S.P.P. takes notice.2. The revision filed under Section 397, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the orders of the J.M.F.C., Puttur in C.C. No. 2000/2000. The petitioner is one of the accused facing trial for committing offences punishable under Sections 326, 342, 343, 346, 347, 352, 357, 365 and 367 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The case was instituted on a private complaint. The Magistrate took cognizance, recorded the sworn statement and on being satisfied with the material, issued process. The petitioner and other accused appeared before the Court. The first petitioner herein is the complainant. The Section petitioner is the accused No. 1. The first petitioner made an application for withdrawal of the complaint under Section 257, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, after considering the relevant provisions of law, has rightly held that the provisions of Section 257, Cr.P.C, do not apply to the case in question since ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »