Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1985Kant99; ILR1984KAR631
Venkatachaliah, J. 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting question as to the scope of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Petitioner seek a mandamus to the State Government to consider and dispose of their representation dt.10-4-1983 as to the question of declaring the 'Attara Cutcherry', a Government building in which the Karnataka High Court is housed, as a 'Protected monument' under S. 4 of the said Act. The petition is filed as sequel to the Government Order No. DPAR/188/SHC/82 dt. 24-3-1982 which has accorded administrative approval for the demolition of the existing 'Attara Cutcherry' and for the construction of a new High Court Building on the site. This petition is before us on its reference to a Division Bench by Swami, J.2. Petitioners in their efforts to avert the demolition of this ancient building, which they cherish as a cultural-heritage and as an enduring sour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1994]93STC51(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. While, S.T.R.Ps. Nos. 66 to 68 of 1991 pertain to the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, S.T.R.P. No. 132 of 1991 pertains to the year 1978-79. Thus the entire period is from November 1, 1978 to November 4, 1983. In all these cases, the assessee questions the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ('the D.C.' for short), in the exercise of his power of revision under section 21 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). In the first three revision petitions the orders were made on August 29, 1989. In respect of the year 1978-79 the order in revision was made on October 4, 1989. 2. After regular assessments were completed, the Deputy Commissioner issued notices under section 21(4) proposing to revise the assessment orders suo motu. The assessee challenged them by filling writ petitions, which were dismissed on April 1, 1986 [See Majaveer Drug House v. State of Karnataka , with certain observations. Thereafter, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2064; II(2000)DMC177; 2000(2)KarLJ466
ORDER1. The first of these appeals has been preferred by the original accused 1 in S.C. No. 75 of 1993 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Chitradurga assailing the correctness of the conviction and sentence awarded to him. The second of the two appeals has been preferred by the State assailing the acquittal of original accused 1 to 3 on the remaining charges under which the Trial Court has acquitted them. The prosecution alleged that on 27-2-1993 the body of Shanthamma, the wife of accused 1 was found in a well in the land belonging to Venkatashivareddy within the jurisdiction of Imangala Police Station. An FIR was lodged on the same day at about 9.30 a.m. which is Ex. P. 11 whereby it was alleged that the death in question was dowry related and consequently, the police registered an offence and commenced investigation. It is alleged that in the course of the investigation it transpired that Shanthamma was married to accused 1 on 25-5-1989 and that pursuant to the negotiations ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1986Kant21; ILR1985KAR2477
Puttaswamy, J. 1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases have been posted before us for disposal.2. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. All the petitioners hold licences called 'Touring Cinema Licences' issued in their favour by the concerned District Magistrates of the Districts ('DMs') presently under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) ('the Act') and the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 ('the Rules') for exhibiting films at the places detailed in their respective licences. The licences have been re-granted from time to time and were due for re-grant sometime before 3-5-1984 or immediately thereafter as is the case.4. After a series of amendments to the Rules, their periodical and endless challenges before this Court, which so far regretfully ended up only in abortive results, to which aspect I will have occasion to refer to it in so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR241
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The Writ Appeal is by respondents 4 and 5 in the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein, the learned single Judge of this Court held that:'(a) the Corporation is not empowered to grant licences to the owners of the sites in the area in question to put up multistoreyed/multi-family dwelling units;(b) the scheme under both the CITB Act and BDA Act provides for the construction of the residential houses by the owners of the sites in question and not for exploitation of those sites for construction of multi-storeyed and multi-family apartments for a commercial purposes, residential or non-residential.(c) the schemes envisage that persons who were not allotted sites and who could not have been allotted sites would not be entitled in law to own apartments by taking advantage of the building licences which are not valid for the construction of multi-family dwelling units on the sites in question.' [Decision is reported in ILR 1988 KAR ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR3772; 2001(3)KarLJ123
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner is an unregistered association claimed to have been formed for taking steps to solve the grievances of citizens of Bangalore and for safeguarding their civil rights.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Association as a Public Interest Litigation, questioning the implementation of Property Tax Self-Assessment Scheme (in short, 'the Scheme'), framed and published by the respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike through its Commissioner. The ground raised for impugning the Scheme is that it isviolative of Article 265 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India since formation of such a Scheme is not permitted under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short, 'the Act') and even if found to be so permissible, it is still void because it is tainted with hostile discriminations,3. The Scheme had been framed and enforced by the respondent-Commissioner pursuant to the Mahanagara Palike Council Resolution No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant389; ILR1998KAR3230; 1998(3)KarLJ73
1. The present second appeal has been placed before this Full Bench under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, since the learned Single Judge, before whom the appeal was placed for hearing, has doubted the correctness of the law laid down by the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of A. Kareem Baig and Others v Dr. Mohammad Khizar Hussain, K. Guru Rao vM. Subba Rao and M. Azmathulla Khan (dead) by L.Rs vThankamma Mathews. In the said decisions, it has been held that once the remedy by way of suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of an immovable property becomes barred by limitation as provided under the Limitation Act, then even the statutory right of the transferee, as given under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short 'the Act'), to defend the possession over the property taken or continued under the said contract as granted is lost, destroyed or gets extinguished.Facts2. This is defendants' second appeal. The plaintiff/respondent had f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(2)KarLJ555
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Subhash B. Adi as well as Sri N.K. Patil for respondent 1, Sri T.S. Ramachandra for respondent 2 and Sri M. Shivappa for respondent 3, in the writ petition.2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought the issuance of writ of prohibition or writ or order, in the nature of writ of prohibition, prohibiting respondent 1 from according sanction for conversion of the road into a site existing in between Site Nos. 10 and 11, in the layout as recommended by the Assistant Executive Engineer, as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent 1 namely the Bangalore Development Authority, to demolish any construction or Civil Works that may have been taken up in the disputed Site No. 10-A, by respondent 3 to the writ petition and to retain Site No. 10-A in its existing position as a road for the use of the petitioner as well as other persons in the locality. He p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR1422
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Though these appeals are listed for hearing on admission, keeping in view the nature of controversy, learned Counsel on both sides consented for final hearing and disposal of the appeals on merits of the lis. Since common question of facts and law are involved in these two appeals, they are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the Court below.2. A few background facts leading to these appeals are:(i) M.F.A. No. 4387/2008:One Khayamuddin, son of Appellants-1 & 2, husband of appellant-3 and father of appellant 4, was employed as a driver by Mr. Mohammed Naseeruddin, to drive his lorry bearing No. KA-39-4256. The said lorry which had been insured with the respondent, while being driven by said Khayamuddin on 09.03.2007, met with an accident and as a result of fatal injuries sustained, he succumbed. The appellants being the heirs an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2004)ACC111; 2005ACJ1534; ILR2003KAR2228; 2003(4)KarLJ291
Rajendraprasad, J.1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.12.2000 passed in M.V.C. No. 717 /1992 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & MACT-IV, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment impugned, particularly regarding fastening of liability on it.2. Sri P.B. Raju, learned Counsel for appellant, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment and award of the Trial Court is illegal and invalid so far as fastening of liability on the Insurance Co. is concerned. The material on record also shows that as on the date of accident, patently, the driver of the vehicle in question did not possess valid Driving Licence and during pendency of the claim petition, the owner of the vehicle died and L.Rs. of the owner had not been brought on record. The learned Counsel relied upon the following decision is support of his contentions:1...
Tag this Judgment!