Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR4045
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. This is a tenant's Revision Petition. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial Court found that the ground under Clause (a) did not arise for consideration and this finding is not challenged before me. Regarding the claim under Clause (h) it was found that the premises was sought by the land lady to enable her husband-P.W.1 to start a business in electrical appliances. At the time of eviction petition he was about to retire from I.T.I, and having regard to his experience the business in electrical appliances could be carried on by him after his retirement.2. The tenant-petitioner is having his hair cutting saloon. According to him this premises was not suitable for the business for which) P.W.1 is claiming because it measures only 8' x 6'. It was further pointed out that landlady has other shop premises which has been let ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR47
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the two Municipal councilors of Dandeli City Municipal Council challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar disqualifying them under Section 3(1)(b) of the Anti Defection Act, Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987.2. The petitioners are councilors elected to the Dandeli City Municipal Council. They belong to the political party JD(S). There are total 31 councilors, JD(S)had got l6 councilors, Congress had got 6 councilors, BJP had got 4 councilors and 4 councilors are independent. The second respondent claims to be the President of Dandeli Block Janata Dal (S) party. He filed a complaint before the first respondent under Section 4 of the Act, alleging that petitioners herein, in the election held to the post of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of the Dandeli City Municipal Council, on 29.02.2008, have not voted in favour of the official candidate of the JD(S) party, in spite of the issuance of a whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR4013
ORDERKedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The Petitioners have filed these two Writ Petitions for an order declaring Section 21(1)(l) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACT') as ultravires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it vividly discriminates the class of tenants, who come under Clause (I) with those tenants, who come under Clause (j). 2. The facts in this case are few and simple. The first petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of Timber and timber products, and the Second Petitioner is its Partner. The suit schedule property bearing site No. 16 is an open plot comes within the residential zone in C.D.P. which was taken on lease by the petitioners on a monthly rental of Rs. 190/- for a commercial purpose. It is alleged that the petitioners had put up structure in the site. 3. The Second Respondent, who is the landlord of the premises filed an eviction petition on 31-8-1988 in HRC No. 2124 of 1988 for eviction of the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR608; 2004(7)KarLJ677
ORDERN. Kumar, J 1. In all the above Writ Petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their lands by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of Visweshwaraiah Layout. As common questions of law and facts do arise for consideration in all these Writ Petitions, they are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in all these petitions could be broadly classified as under:-(a) The owners of lands who are either cultivating the land personally or who have put up constructions on the said lands and using them either for residential purposes, non-residential purposes or industrial purposes.(b) The owners of sites; (i) Who have purchased sites in agricultural lands.(ii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are not approved and formed in agricultural lands.(iii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are formed after conversion and after obtaining the necessary permission/sanction from the local authorities.(iv) Who have purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR318; 2006(1)KarLJ1
N. Kumar, J.1. The appellants-Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the BDA'), the State of Karnataka, the former Chief Minister Sri S.'M. Krishna and two others have challenged in this batch of eight writ appeals the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings pertaining to 'ARKAVATHI LAYOUT' as well as the declaration made to the effect that the BDA has no jurisdiction to frame developmental schemes in Bangalore Metropolitan Area and against other reliefs granted in the writ petitions. Some writ petitions have also been filed challenging the acquisition of land for the formation of the 'Arkavathi Layout' on the grounds, which have been upheld by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment under appeal. Since identical questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the writ appeals and the writ petitions they are taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts leading to the present proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR4142; 1992(1)KarLJ604
N.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 13-8-1981 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore in O.S.No. 61/1980.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:Plaintiff filed a suit at O.S.No. 61/1980 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District praying for a decree for specific performance of the agreement said to have taken place between him and defendant-1 on 21-1-1980 in respect of Sy.Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 27/2 of Gottigere Village, Bangalore District. In short the case of the plaintiff is as under: An Agreement of Sale of the aforesaid Sy.Nos. was entered into on 21-1-1980 between the plaintiff and defendant-1. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 1,46,000/-. It was agreed that on the said date that plaintiff should pay Rs. 39,000/- to defendant-1 and defendant-1 should deliver possession of the aforesaid lands to the plaintiff on 23-1-1980. It was also agreed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR4317; 2002(1)KarLJ279
ORDERThe Court 1. The unsuccessful Indian National Congress (I) candidate Sri C. Veerabhadraiah, the petitioner has questioned the 11th Karnataka Legislative Assembly General Election held on 5-9-1999 for Koratagere Legislative Assembly Constituency (No. 56), Tumkur District declaring respondent 1-Sri C. Channigappa as elected candidate in the counting ofvotes that took place on 6-10-1999 by the Returning Officer, Koratagere Assembly Constituency under Section 100(1)(b) and (d)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. The petitioner-C. Veerabhadraiah from the Indian National Congress (I), respondent 1-C. Channigappa from the Janatha Dal (S), respondent 2-Andanappa from BJP, Smt. Jayanthi, respondent 3 from Janatha Dal (U) and respondents 4 to 6 are being independent candidates, contested for the election to the Legislative Assembly from the State, No. 56, Koratagere Assembly Constituency held on 5-9-1999. In the said election, respondent 1-Channigappa has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR38; [2006]147STC269(Kar)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellants in this appeal were the petitioners in writ petitions No. 5158-61 of 2005. The substantial grievance of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessees') in the writ petitions was that since the parts of Computer and Computer peripherals were exempted from levy of Turnover Tax/Resale Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the TOT/RST) under Section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by means of Notification No. FD 48 CSL 2000 (2) dated 18'' July 2000; No. FD 97 CSL 2001 (7) No. 660 dated 31st March 2001 and No. FD 54 CSL 2002 (4) dated 30'' March 2002, the copies of which have been produced as Annexure-E, F and G respectively to this appeal, the proposition notices issued by the Assessing Authorities pursuant to the Circular dated 31st December 2004 in No. CLR CR. 157/04-05, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D to the writ petitions, were without jurisdiction and were liable to be qua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2000]246ITR750(KAR); [2000]246ITR750(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. In all these I. T. R. Cs. since the controversies are common, they are decided by this common order. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law : 2. In I. T. R. C. No. 4 of 1996, the following question of law has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'kist' amount payable to the Government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 3. In I. T. R. C. No. 5 of 1996, the following question of law has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the changed provisions in the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, especially the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'kist' amount payable to the Government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of provisions of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1997)ACC72
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal which creates a rather delicate situation for the Court and raises, once more a situation whereby the Court is required to almost bend over backwards for purposes of moulding a relief within the framework of the law. Though the issue appears to be relatively simple, namely, the question as to whether under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act the heirs of the deceased employee are entitled to compensation in the light of the unusual facts of this case, the time frame itself and the paucity of evidence before the Trial Court have seriously complicated the matter. The appellant, in the year 1980, was employed as a supervisor with the first respondent-company. At the relevant time, his salary was Rs. 801.80 per month. He was deputed to visit Bangalore in connection with some official duties and, in the course of this visit, that too on a Sunday, he suddenly died of cardiac arrest. His widow who is the present appellant No. 1, on her behalf...
Tag this Judgment!