Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1994Kant56; ILR1993KAR2939; 1993(4)KarLJ769
ORDER1. Reliefs sought for by each of the petitipetitioners in the following writ petitions are as detailed below.W.P. No. 17519/89(a) Writ in the nature of certiorari declaring that the impugned Rule 230 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules based on Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and final pronouncement or paper notification by respondent No. 4 as null and void and ultra vires the Constitution or any other direction.W.P.17997/89(a) To strike down Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as unconstitutional and the notification given under Annexure-A be quashed by a writ of certiorari and for such other writ or order or direction.W.P. 18344/89(a) Declare the provisions of Section 129 of the Act and the Rule 230 of the Rules, as ultra vires of the Constitution.(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of a writ not to enforce the provision of Section 129 and Rule 230 against the petitioners or others who drive or ride the motor cycle.W.P. 24862/9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR3068; 1994(1)KarLJ169
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. On 29th September 1993, I directed the Government Pleader to take notice and consequently the authorities are deemed to be represented. The main relief sought for is against the 3rd respondent represented by the Government Pleader. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for respondents-1 to 3 and respondents-4 and 5. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought for in the Writ Petition it was heard for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the two Endorsements issued by the Police Commissioner, Hubli, directing the petitioner to close the lodging house. The first contention of the petitioners is that the Police Act does not envisage the obtaining of any licence when no food is served in the lodging house. The second contention pertains to the deeming provision in the Licensing and Controlling Order, 1989, based on the following facts. 3. Our of abundant caution petitioner applied for renewal of earlier licence under the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC268; JT1993(5)SC497; (1993)4SCC441; [1993]Supp2SCR659
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.(for himself and on behalf of Yogeshwar Dayal, G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand & S.P. Bharucha, JJ.) :1. By and Order dated October 26,1990 passed in Subhash Sharma and Ors. and Anr. Union of India (1990) 2 S.C.R. 433 and the matters connected therewith, the papers of Writ petition No. 1303 of 1987 - Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. v. Union Of India were directed to be placed before the learned Chief Justice of India for constituting a Bench of nine Judges to examine the two question referred therein, namely, the position of the Chief Justice of India with reference to primacy, and justiciability of fixation of Judge strength. That Order was made since the referring Bench was of the opinion, that the correctness of the majority view in S.P. Gupta and Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. : [1982]2SCR365 , required reconsideration by a larger Bench. This is how these questions arise for decision by this Bench.2. The context in which the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : II(1994)ACC117; 1994ACJ138; AIR1994Ori65; [1994]80CompCas461(Orissa); 1994(I)OLR1
Hansaria, C.J. 1. These appeals by the insurer have raised the question of its liability to satisfy the awards which have been passed in proceedings under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter, 'the Act') claiming compensation for the death of three persons who were travelling in a goods vehicle, which had been hired by the deceased and who were travelling in the vehicle which got involved in an accident. When these appeals came before one of us (G. B. Patnaik, J.), reliance was placed on a bench decision of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narayani Bai, 1984 Ace CJ 106 : (AIR 1984 Orissa 43) in which this question had been answered in affiramtive. This had been done following the decisions of Karnataka High Court in Channappa v. Laxman Bhimappa, AIR 1979 Karnataka 93; T. M. Renukappav. Fahmida, 1980 Acc CJ 86 : (AIR 1980 Karnataka 25) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gangamma, 1982 Acc CJ 357 : (AIR 1982 Karnataka 263). The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR3153; 1993(4)KarLJ604
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these Writ Petitions the basic question pertains to the power of the State Government to fix the price of rectified spirit to be sold to the manufacturers of arrack. This question is sought to be projected by reference to several Rules made under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short).Petitioners primarily rely on the Decision of the Supreme Court in SYNTHETICS & CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. v. STATE OF UP. AND ORS., (hereinafter referred as the 'Second Synthetics case'). Rectified spirit is manufactured out of molasses by a process of fermentation. It is not fit for human consumption and it is not potable alcohol. Therefore, according to the petitioner it is not an 'intoxicant' or 'liquor' in the ordinary sense of the term. Rectified spirit is also called, industrial alcohol which is the raw material for the use in many chemical and drug industries. It is also a raw material in the manufacture of potable alcohol including arrack a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC222; 1994(2)BLJR1059; 1994CriLJ248; JT1993(6)SC498; 1993(4)SCALE220; (1994)1SCC453
G.N. Ray, J.1. The Criminal Appeal No. 553 of 1982 is directed against the judgment dated August 2, 1982 passed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 1980 and Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1981. The Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 1982 is directed against the judgment dated August 2, 1982 passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal appeal No. 54 of 1981. As the aforesaid appeals before the High Court arose out of the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan dated June 28, 1980 passed in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1979, the said appeals were heard analogously and were disposed of by a common judgment of Karnataka High Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Hassan, tried both the accused/ appellants, namely, accused No. 1, Raju and accused No. 2, Krishna in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1979 for the offences under Sections 342, 323, 506, 376 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused No. 1, Raju, for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR641
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The factual background is as follows.2. The 1st petitioner was born on 26th September, 1977 and has passed VIII Standard Examination in April 1991. It is alleged that he was compelled to leave the School due to domestic difficulties. On or about 10th July, 1992, he approached the Principal of a School and sought to submit his application form (No. 17-meant for private candidates and students) for appearing for S.S.C. Board Examination to be held in March, 1993. However, the School informed that he could not register as he has not completed 16 years of age on the date of registration (31st July of each year) and can only appear for Examination to be held in March, 1994. This was in view of Regulation 42(1)(d) as was prevailing at that time.3. The 2nd petitioner passed his S.S.C. Board Examination in March, 1991. It is alleged that due to financial difficulties he could not join the Junior College. On or about 6th July, 1992, he approached one College with application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1994)118CTR(Kar)449; ILR1994KAR913; [1994]206ITR237(KAR); [1994]206ITR237(Karn); 1994(38)KarLJ28
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The third respondent is the owner of premises bearing Nos. 23-24, S.B.I. Senior Officers' Colony, Koramangala, III Block, Bangalore. The first petitioner is the tenant in respect of the first floor of the said premises having taken it on lease from the third respondent. For convenience the third respondent and first petitioner will (hereinafter be referred to as the 'owner' and the 'tenant'). The second petitioner is an employee of the first petitioner who is in occupation of the said first floor portion (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted portion'). According to the tenant, the lease was originally for a period of four years from May 10, 1985, and by mutual consent, it has been extended up to May 10, 1994. 2. The owner entered into an agreement dated January 21, 1993, with one Mr. Krishna Kapila agreeing to sell the entire property for a consideration of Rs. 26,50,000 and received Rs. 6,50,000 as advance. The agreement provided that the owner shall the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1994]207ITR971(Mad)
Pratap Singh J.1. The accused in C. C. Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Madurai, has filed these petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing all further proceedings in the said C. C. Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1991. 2. The respondent has filed these three complaints against the petitioner for offences under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act and under sections 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of three assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, respectively. The allegations in those complaints are similar. They are briefly as follows : 3. The complainant is the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. He is a public servant and this complaint is instituted as such. The complaint is filed with the previous sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai, under section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The accused is an individual engaged in tailoring business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1994]93STC464(Kar)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Notice regarding Rule was issued and on appearance, by consent these petitions were finally heard. The petitioner is a manufacturer and dealer in cement and is an assessee under the Karnataka Sales-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These petitions relate to asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981- 82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 and involve a common question of law. Petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the five orders of rectification made under s. 25A adding packing charges regarding cement to the taxable turnover. The petitioner contends that the assessment orders do not suffer from any mistake apparent from the record and consequently the orders of rectification are without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 2. The petitioner was initially assessed to tax in regard to the said five years by orders dt. 27th May, 1988, 27th May, 1988, 28th May, 1988, 20th July, 1988 and 20th July, 1988. On appeal by the petitioner, the appellat...
Tag this Judgment!