Karnataka Court August 2001 Judgments

Sanjiva Matandooru Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR4272; 2001(6)KarLJ509

ORDERThe Court1. The petitioner is challenging the validity of Section 11(1)(ix) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act') to the extent of providing voting right to members nominated under this section.2. Heard Sri K.M. Nataraj, the learned Counsel for the petitioner; Sri B.H. Satish, High Court Government Pleader for respondent 1 and Sri B.G. Sridharan, Advocate for respondent 2.3. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are as follows:The Act was promulgated with the object of providing better facilities to the agriculturists by regulating, establishing and administering the markets for agricultural produces and the matters connected therein in the State of Karnataka. The election to the respondent 2-Committee was held on 21-3-2001 to constitute a Committee under Section 11 of the Act. According to Section 11, eleven members will have to be elected from the agriculturists' constituency and one member each sh...

Mohammed Ali and anr. Vs. Khutejatul Kubra and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR4580; 2002(1)KarLJ596

ORDERThe Court 1. The short point that arises for consideration in the CRP is whether the defendants can raise a new plea or a new claim by way of an additional written statement under Order 8, Rule 9 of the CPC.2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and for separate possession of their 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The defendants have filed a written statement contesting the said claim. In the written statement they have taken up a contention firstly, that the sale in favour of the plaintiffs by the first defendant is not valid and legal and it does not bind the other defendants. Secondly, they contend it apre-emptive right to purchase that 1/4th share from the first defendant and when the plaintiffs have purchased the 1/4th share in contravention of the pre-emption right, no title passes to them. Thirdly, they have contended the sale transaction in favour of the plaintiffs is collusive and a sham transaction and title does not pass. On these pleadings, the Tri...

Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors. Vs. Kirloskar Ferrous ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2001]124STC725(Kar)

P.V. Reddi, C.J. 1. These writ appeals are filed by the State (Commercial Taxes Department) against the common judgment in W.Ps. Nos. 3793-97 of 1999 [Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment I) . Learned single Judge while holding against the assessee that the lumps purchased by the assessee are ore and shall be treated as such even for the period prior to April 1, 1996 (when the entry was amended), however, gave relief to the extent that, in accordance with the clarification given by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the assessee was entitled to purchase lumps against form 37. Accordingly, the assessing authority was directed to modify the assessment order.2. The respondent herein, filed writ petitions questioning the various assessment orders under the Karnataka and Central Sales Tax Acts for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96 and a declaration was also sought that the iron ore lumps are not liable to purchase tax under ent...

N. Shivashankarachari Vs. the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpora ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner, an ex-employee of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to inquire into an alleged fraudulent document at Annexure-D by the 5th respondent in terms of his representation at Annexure-G. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to recover the losses caused to the Corporation by means of back wages and other incidental losses caused to the Corporation in the matter.2. The petitioner was an employee having worked for 19 years as a conductor. He was a member of a Union and he was often moving with the office-bearers of the Union during his free hours. His services were terminated on an earlier occasion and he was reinstated thereafter. Again in the year 1994 for the second time, his services were terminated on certain false charges resulting in dispute in I.D. No. 251 of 1994. The Labour Court set aside the enquiry. The Corporation, with a view to avoid 50% of the wages, took him bac...

Nanjundaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The only question involved herein is as to whether during the period 24-9-1984 and 27-11-1991, the Deputy Commissioners had the competence to issue notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'principal Act') as amended and extended to the State of Karnataka by the Land Acquisition (Karnataka Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 (in short the 'State Amending Act')2. The appellants are the owners of land bearing Sy. No. 565/4 of Mallavalli Village, measuring one acre six guntas. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner, published a notification in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 15-3-1993 proposing to acquire the said land for public purpose, namely for construction of a primary school. The appellants questioned the competence of the Deputy Commissioner to issue notification in view of the amendment to the Central Act as effected by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 made by the Parliament. This amending Act, came into force on 24-9-...