Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-16-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ116
Acts/Rules/Orders:Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 8, 14, 18, 19, 32, 38-B, 65, 69, 70 and 71;Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1994;Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 - Rules 3, 4(2), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 14(3);Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 6 and 7Provincial Insolvency Act, 1963;Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226;Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976;Housing Act, 1957 - Section 105(1);Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 60(1) - Order 33, Rule 1;Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909;Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920;Provincial Insolvency (Karnataka, Extension and Amendment) Act, 1962;Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 4, 6, 7, 10, 28, 35, 36, 37 and 60Cases Referred:S.P. Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149;Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D 458;Reed Bowen and Company, (1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)92; ILR1998KAR3918; 1998(6)KarLJ256
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. These two appeals are interconnected since they are directed against the common judgment and order of conviction dated 9-7-1997 in S.C. No. 75 of 1993 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, henceforth in brief referred as 'Sessions Judge'. When the first appeal is filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the second appeal is filed by the accused No. 3. In passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the learned Sessions Judge had sentenced all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 323, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. While so doing, the learned Sessions Judge had awarded R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and further awarded imprisonment for life and further slapped a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to pay the sum, all of them were directed to undergo R.I. for a further period of 4 months.2. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants in the first appeal Sri S.P. Kulkarni and the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-09-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ462
ORDER1. These appeals are from the judgment and decree dated 14th July, 1987 delivered by (Sri M. Shama Bhat) the II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Original Suit No. 26 of 1979 dismissing the plaintiffs claim for partition as well as the claim of the first defendant for partition and separate possession of their respective shares.2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the plaintiff Padmavathi filed a suit along with her husband K. Prabhakar Rai (deceased) for division of plaint 'A' to 'D' schedule properties into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to her in the aforesaid property. The plaintiffs have also sought for relief for accounting the income of mesne profits of the schedule properties with effect from 25-11-1978 till the delivery of the share to them.3. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to mention the relationship inter se between the parties.Ramanna Shetty and his wife Poovakka ShedthiPadmavathiYeshoda R. ShettyRamakrishna She...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-11-1998
Reported in : ILR1998KAR4144
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J. 1. Two agriculturists of Channarayapatna village of Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore Rural District, had resorted to the instant Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation. In filing the same, they prayed for issue of a writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certioraris or any other appropriate writ to quash the Official Memorandum No. LND/SR/(1)/ 16/1976-77 dated 25.5.79, passed by the respondent No. 5 Tahsildar, Devanahalli taluk, Devanahalli, copy as at Annexure 'F' td Writ Petition and also for issue of an order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 5 to consider the legitimate grievance of the petitioners as enumerated in their representations, copies as at Annexures 'B' and 'C' to Writ Petition and further to retain the status quo condition of the gomal land in Sy. No. 163 or for grant of any other appropriate writ. 2. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Sundaram appearing along with Sri K.N. Subbare...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-24-1998
Reported in : (1999)153CTR(Kar)375
Ashok Bhan , J.For the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal,' has referred the following question of law to this court with appropriate statement of case. As the issue involved in the appeals before the Tribunal was the same, the appeals were, for the sake of convenience, consolidated and heard together. One common order was passed in all the appeals. The reference applications were also disposed of by a common order and therefore, this order shall dispose of the reference petitions for all the three years by a common order :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order dated 3-12-1985, under section 154 for the assessment year in question ?'2. The assessee is an arrack contractor. It has been assessed in the status of unregistered firm. In the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 completed by the Income Tax Officer, on 15-2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-27-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ603
1. Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to malignise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio- economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.2. The menace of corruption was found to have enormously increased by first and second world war conditions. The corruption, at th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-19-1998
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3450; 1998(5)KarLJ360
1. This is plaintiff's first appeal from the judgment and decree dated 12-11-1990, passed by Sri K.R. Prasad Rao, XIV Additional City Civil Judge, (Mayo Hall), Bangalore in Original Suit No. 649 of 1980 (No. 7 of 74), dismissing the plaintiff's-appellant's suit for the reliefs mentioned hereinafter in toto.2. That the plaintiff in the above suit claimed:(a) Decree for declaration to the effect that the suit scheduled properties exclusively belong to plaintiff; and (b)That any alienation of suit properties i.e., items 3 and 4 of schedule properties even made by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are illegal, null and void and are not binding on plaintiff; (c)Decree for permanent injunction; 3. That the plaintiff-defendant i.e., the appellant-respondents are related as below: P.GovindappaSmt. Kenchamma (Defendant 1)Plaintiff(G.C. Papanna)(Defendant No. 2)(D. Chikkamma)(Defendant No. 3)(Puttalakshmamma)(Defendant No. 4)Govind Raj Natural son Auras putra given in adoption to Madk...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-30-1998
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1829
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved is common. Validity of notifications dated September 23, 1998, November 9, 1998 and March 31, 1998 have been assailed in these writ petitions beside challenging the validity of Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979.2. Controversy is in respect of motor vehicles, parts and accessories and other goods from April 1, 1994 to January 6, 1998.Validity of Section 3(1) of the Act :3. Validity of Section 3(1) as amended by Act No. 8 of 1993 conferring power on the State Government to issue notification retrospectively or prospectively has been assailed on the ground that the assent of the President of India as required by proviso to Article 404(b) of the Constitution of India has not been received.4. Mr. R.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the judgments given by this Court in the case of Jyothi Home Industries . State of Karnataka [1987...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-30-1998
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1897; 1998(4)KarLJ323; (1999)IILLJ532Kant
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. In all these writ petitions the question involved is identical with little variation of facts in W.P. Nos. 16388 to 16398 of 1997 and W.P. No. 22511 of 1997 to which we shall advert and deal with in the later part of the judgment. Facts are taken from W.P. nOB. 14083 and 14084 of 1997, M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another v State of Karnataka.2. This case is concerned with the vires of the notification KA-E-C-LWA 97, dated 11th April, 1997 Annexure-A prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the canteen (industrial canteens) in factories employing 250 workers and above in the State of Karnataka under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Act 37 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Relevant facts extracted from the pleadings of the parties are:4. First petitioner is one of the units of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited located at Byatarayanapura, Bellary Road, Bangalore. It was started in the year 1975 for m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-18-1998
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1317; 1999(2)KarLJ259; (1999)ILLJ1239Kant
ORDER1. All these petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutionality of the proviso to Section 1(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that it offends the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The constitutional objection adverted is common to all the writ petitions. All the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 1st of July, 1992 issued by the 2nd respondent-State of Karnataka vide Annexure-A making the provisions of the Act applicable to every establishment and every contractor, who employs less than 20 workmen on the ground that there is a transgression by the State of the limits laid down and it is the case whether the power exercised is excessive and unreasonable.2. To appreciate the grounds on which the contentions a...
Tag this Judgment!