Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1979Kant111; ILR1979KAR655; 1978(2)KarLJ425
Venkatachaliah, J.1. These three Civil Revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Jain Swetambara Murthi Pujaka Samstha, said to be a public trust, are directed against the three orders, all dated 30th August, 1973, made by the Principal Munsiff, Bijapur on interlocutory application in H. R. C. No. 33 of 1970, H. R. C. No. 71 of 1964 and H. R. C. No. 1 of 1970 respectively. By the said orders, the Court below dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner-landlord invoking provisions of O. 1, R. 10, sub-rule (2) read with O. VI, R. 17 of the Civil P. C. Range Gowda, J., has referred these petitions to a Division Bench, and that is how they are before us.2. The factual antecedents in so far as they are necessary for the decision of the question that arises in these petitions are the following:Petitioner herein is said to be a public trust the powers of management and governance respecting which are said to vest in a body of 10 trustees. Petitioner filed i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1981Kant135; ILR1981KAR780; 1981(1)KarLJ193
1. This appeal is by 17 plaintiffs out of the original 67 Plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-10-1973 of the Civil Judge, Haveri in R. A. No. 72 of 1971 affirming the judgment and decree dated 14-8-1968 of the Munsiff Haveri in L. C. suit No. 12 of 1967.2. At Bommanahalli village of Hanagal Taluk, Dharwar District, there is a Government irrigation tank bearing R. S. No. 176. In the earlier revenue records, the tank had been given R. S. No. 97 of Needsangi village, which is now a becharak or an abandoned village. Ever since the said tank was constructed or at any rate till about 1966 or so there were two sluices or outlets regulating the supply of water to the command area or 'achakat' of the said tank. On an examination of the requirements of the land holders of the command area, in March, 1966, according to defendant No. 1, but some time in March, 1967 according to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 has constructed one more sluice or out-let to the said tan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1980Kant130
ORDER1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases. I propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Among others, the petitioners, who own lea than five powerlooms claim to be solely engaged in the manufacture of coloured sarees in the several parts of Karnataka State but with considerable concentration at places like Banahatti, Rabkavi, Terdal, Mahalingapur and some other places of Bijapur, Dharwar and Belgaum Districts. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause 20 f the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order 1948 (hereinafter -referred to as the Control Order), the joint Textile Commissioner, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') by Notifications Nos. CER/10/77 and CER/2/77 dated 15th April. 1977, has issued various directions regulating the production of cotton textiles by different manufacturers in the country to be In force till 31-8-1982. By one of the directions, owners of less than five powerlooms are prohibited fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR2496; 1994(3)KarLJ508; (1995)ILLJ520Kant
ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J. 1. The petitioner, a Society is challenging the order Annexure 'A' dated 11-5-1994 passed by the second respondent Labour Court refusing to consider an issue as a preliminary issue in dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent. 2. The first respondent was working as Secretary of the Petitioner-Society and he was dismissed from Service retrospectively from 1-8-1973 for an act of misconduct involving misappropriation of the Society's funds. The first Respondent gave a representation to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 25-6-1974. As the Assistant Registrar could not direct the Society to withdraw the order of dismissal, the appellant filed a Suit before the Munsiff Court, Sirsi, in O. S. 4/75. On 31-10-1977, the plaint was returned for being presented to a proper Court. Thereafter, the first respondent moved the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies against the order of dismissal. That dispute was numbered and by an order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1984]150ITR382(KAR); [1984]150ITR382(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Whether an order under s. 21 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (the 'Act') is appealable or not is the short question raised for consideration in these revision petitions. 2. For the years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer (AITO) concluded assessments under s. 19(4) of the Act in respect of the agricultural income of the respondent who did not respond to any of the notices issued. 3. The respondent-assesses moved the Agrl. ITO with an application under s. 21 of the Act with an affidavit and medical certificate for cancellation of the said assessment orders. In the affidavit in support of that application, he has stated that he was suffering from diabetes and blood pressure since a very long time and, therefore, could not attend the office punctuality nor able to comply with the terms of notices issued to him. The Agrl. ITO dismissed the application disbelieving the averments of the respondent with an observation that he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2428; ILR2000KAR1974; 2000(2)KarLJ362
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The State of Karnataka, through this appeal has assailed the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent-accused by the learned J.M.F.C., Hungund in C.C. No. 1179 of 1988. Briefly stated, the accused Hanamappa Hugar who was working as the Secretary of the S.K. Budihal V.S.S.S. between the years 1976 and 1984 is alleged to have misappropriated three amounts of money during the period from 1-7-1983 to 31-3-1984. The three amounts in question are an amount of Rs. 2,400/-which was the salary amount payable to one P.B. Goudar who was another employee of the society, an amount of Rs. 72-50 which was detected to be short when the accounts were audited and an amount of Rs. 15,080-42 which amount was the cash balance which the accused had to handover on 31-3-1984 when he was relieved of his charge and which he failed to do. The accused was tried by the learned JMFC and the Court by judgment and order dated 23-11-1994 acquitted the ac-cused holding that all the thre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR3445
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioners seek the quashing of the judgment and decree made in LAC. No. 3/1978 on the file of the Civil Judge, Uttar Kannada, Karwar.2. W.P. No. 10415/83 is by Ballarpur Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'The Company') which claims that the lands which were the subject matter of the aforesaid decision of the Court of the Civil Judge, were acquired for the benefit of the Company, f or the purpose of constructing salt pans for its caustic soda factory at Binaga, in Uttar Kannada. According to the Company, it initiated action through the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'The Board) for the acquisition of these lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (shortly called 'The Act) after declaring -the said lands as an industrial area.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Company was not notified of the proceedings before the Civil Court under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3892; 2004(3)KarLJ505
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. In these writ petitions important questions of law as regards the power of the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta to investigate complaints under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the procedure to be followed in such investigations, the effect of the report submitted by the Lokayukta and the consequences that flow from the declarations made under the Act arise for consideration, in addition to the question whether the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta has jurisdiction to investigate a complaint against a Vice-Chancellor of a University.2. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 25339 and 25340 of 2003 is one Professor S.N. Hegde, Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore. His case in brief is as under.--The petitioner was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor in September 1997 initially for a period of three years which was further extended for a period of three years in September 2000. His term was to expire in September 2003. He had put in more than 40 years of service in teac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1990)82CTR(Kar)322; [1990]183ITR299(KAR); [1990]183ITR299(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question of law referred to us under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), is as under: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (i) that no interest under section 139(8) is leviable on the registered firm as the advance tax paid as registered firm exceeded the tax payable by it as registered firm; and (ii) that interest is payable to the assessee under section 214 by revision on account of reduction in total income in appeal?' 2. While allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the payment of interest on the excess advance tax under section 214 of the Act by computing the excess with reference to the revised order. The Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, affirmed this order, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR1809; 2001(2)KarLJ534
ORDER1. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought for grant of following reliefs in their favour, in the circumstances of the case. The reliefs read as under.-(a) declare that the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the rules framed thereunder are void by reason of being violative of the Constitution of India and beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament; (b) the Debt Recovery Tribunal for Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh established at Bangalore City as being void; (c) the scheme of the Act as unreasonable and unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. And by issue of writs of mandamus, Certiorarl and other appropriate writs, orders and directions; (d) direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to give effect to the Act; (e) quash the notification vide Annexure-A, dated 30-11-1994 constituting the Debt Recovery Tribunal for Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh at Bangalore City vide Annexure-A and also the order dated 29...
Tag this Judgment!