Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1984
Reported in : AIR1984Kant157
ORDER1. Among others, the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy. number 152/1A of Tagdur village, Nanjangud Taluka, measuring 3 acres 28 guntas. As a progressive farmer, the petitioner has sunk an irrigation well in the land and has installed an irrigation pump set to draw water and cultivate the same.2. In exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act 18 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District. Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the DC) issued preliminary notification No. Li VPC 30HLA 76 dated 11-3-1976 (Published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary dated 22-4-1976) (Exhibit-C) proposing to acquire Sy. No. 152/lA owned by the petitioner and another land bearing Sy. No. 149/ owned by one Smt. Madamma for purposes of providing sites to houseless and sightless people of the village, which was objected to by the petitioner and Smt. Madamm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1984
Reported in : ILR1984KAR852
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases they were clubbed and heard together.2. The proceedings under challenge in these cases are proceedings initiated in the courts below at the instance of the concerned Assistant Commercial Tax Officers under Section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act).3. The assessees, on appearing in the courts below, raised objections to the proceeding taken up mainly on the ground that the order of assessment was void and, therefore the proceeding to recover the tax covered under that assessment order should not be permitted. The learned Magistrate, Chintamani, Kolar District, upholding the objections of the assessee concerned, dismissed the petitions filed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. But the learned Magistrate, K.G.F., over ruling similar objections raised by the assessees has decided to take further action in the matters.4. The assessees in all these cases are running hotels ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1984
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1097
N. Venkatachala, J.1. In this writ petition, important questions arise for determination.2. Material facts are briefly these:On the coming into force of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner made an application under the Act, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bidar (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Magistrate'). By that application, he sought to obtain from the Magistrate a declaration that he was a debtor under the Act and a further declaration that a debt due by him to respondent-2 under a simple money bond, had stood discharged. By his order dated 23-8-1976, the Magisterial rejected that application finding, inter alia, that the petitioner had not pledged any article with respondent-2 and that he was also not a debtor under the Act.3. The petitioner challenged that order by preferring a revision application before the Sessions Judge (respondent-3) purporting to be under Sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the Cri. P.C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1984
Venkatachala, J.1. In this writ petition, important questions arise for determination. 2. Material facts are briefly these : On the coming into force of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner made an application under the Act, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bidar (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Magistrate'). By that application, he sought to obtain from the Magistrate a declaration that he was a debtor under the Act and a further declaration that a debt due by him to respondent-2 under a simple money bond, had stood discharged. By his order dated 23-8-1976, the Magistrate rejected that application finding, inter alia, that the petitioner had not pledged any article with respondent-2 and that he was also not a debtor under the Act. 3. The petitioner challenged that order by preferring a revision application before the Sessions Judge (respondent-3) purporting to be under sub-section (1) of S. 397 of the Cri.P.C. 1973...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-14-1984
Reported in : [1984]56STC79(Kar)
ORDER1. These revisions arise out of the orders passed by the JMFC., Harihar, in C.C. Nos. 302/81, 305/81, 369/81, 312/81, 311/81, 310/81, 306/81, 304/81, 303/81, and 307/81, respectively whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the respondents, who were accused in different cases, for contravention of S. 12B(1) punishable under S. 29(1)(g), Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and released them on admonition in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of S. 360, Criminal P.C. 2. Since the question of law raised is common to all of them, they are heard simultaneously and are disposed of by the common order. 3. The learned Magistrate has proceeded to convict the accused on their pleading guilty and having regard to the fact that they were all first offenders has thought it proper to release them on admonition. 4. Mr. T. J. Chouta, learned High Court Government pleader appearing for the State, submitted that the provisions of sub-section (3) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-14-1984
ORDERPatil, J.1. These revisions arise out of the orders passed by the J.M.F.C., Harihar in C.C. Nos. 302 of 1981, 305 of 1981, 369 of 1981, 312 of 1981, 311 of 1981, 310 of 1981, 306 of 1981, 304 of 1981, 303 of 1981 and 307 of 1981, respectively whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the respondents, who were accused in different cases, for contravention of section 12B(1) punishable under section 29(1)(g) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and released them on admonition in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Since the question of law raised is common to all of them, they are heard simultaneously and are disposed of by the common order. 3. The learned Magistrate has proceeded to convict the accused on their pleading guilty and having regard to the fact that they were all first offenders has thought it proper to release them on admonition. 4. Mr. T. J. Chouta, the learned H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-01-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Kant17
ORDER1. On 7-2-1984, Sri S.Udayashankar was directed to take notice on behalf of the 1st respondent.Accordingly, the learned H. C. G. P. took notice on behalf of the 1st respondent and put in his appearance after obtaining the records and necessary instructions.2. The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on the route K. G. F. to Masti. He has filed an application for variation of the conditions of the permit by extending the route from, Masti to Bangalore and curtailment of one round trip from K. G. F. to Masti. The application of the petitioner was published in the Karnataka Gazette on, 4 -7-1984 (1983?). It was also listed for consideration before the first respondent on 3-12-1983 and thereafter, the consideration of it came to be postponed to 3-2-83 (1984?).3. The 2nd respondent has also filed an application for grant of stage carriage permit from Kanamanapalli to Bangalore via K. G. F., Bangarpet and Masti.4. Thus the route in respect of which, the 2nd respondent has s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-02-1984
Reported in : ILR1984KAR21; 1984(2)KarLJ1
Kudoor, J.1. These two criminal appeals by the State arise out of the judgment and order dated 30th November 1981 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in S. C. No. 28/1981. Cr. A. No. 281/1982 is one under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of all the five accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447 and Section 302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. and also the acquittal of A2 to A5 of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 I. P. C. Cr.A. No. 282/1982 is one under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the sentence awarded against A1 to A3 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 304 Part II read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. All the five accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. on the ground that all of them on 24-12-1980 at about 3 p.m. constituted themselves into an unlawful assembly armed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-05-1984
Reported in : AIR1984Kant208; 1984(1)KarLJ521
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. This is an appeal by the appellants who were the respondents and is directed against the order dt. 2-11-1979 of out learned brother Venkatachala, J., allowing Writ Petition No. 65N of 1975: (since reported in (1980) 1 Kant LJ 362), filed by the respondents who were the petitioners.2. Land hearing Sy. No. 169/1 of Ramanagaram village/town measuring 1 acre 20 guntas originally stood in the name of one Sidda son of Channamma in the record of rights (hereinafter referred to as the RTC) maintained by the Revenue Department of Government. Sidda is stated to have died some time in 1967 and on his death respondent-l petitioner who is one of his sons has been recognised as the owner of the said land in the RTC' in the place of Sidda. In an authenticated extract of' the RTC furnished by the Tahsildar, Ramanagaram, the relevant entry of the same reads thus:-'1. Survey number, Sircar of Inam and local name of the Field if any 169 2. Sub-Division Number 1 3. Description of Lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-06-1984
Reported in : ILR1984KAR278
ORDER1. This is a revision by the petitioner, who was accused 1 in C.C. No. 2888/1983 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli City. 2. The complainant filed a complaint for the offence under S. 500, IPC, against accused 1 who is said to have made an alleged defamatory statement and also against accused 2 and 3 who are the Printer and Publisher and Editor of Samyukta Karnataka Daily, published in Hubli. The accused 1 is said to have called a Press Conference on 28th April, 1983 at Bangalore and is said to have made the alleged defamatory statement at that Press Conference. The said statement was published in various newspapers including Samyukta Karnataka Daily published in Hubli. That Samyukta Karnataka Paper was published at Hubli on 29-4-1983. The complainant feeling that the publication of the said statement said to have been made by accused 1 amounted to an offence of defamation as defamation as defined by S. 499, IPC, has filed a complaint in the Court of the J.M.F.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!