Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-23-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Kant245; 1990(1)KarLJ173
ORDER1. Unfortunately this matter has been posted once again before me on account of what was recorded on 8-2-1989, When I proceeded for orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment. Therefore, it was adjourned by one week. Today, I have heard Mr. Baliga once again in the light of the noting made by my learned brother PKSJ., on Feb. 16, 1989.2. The questions which are raised before this Court are :--1. Whether the order under revision is bereft of reason? 2. If it is not bereft of reasons whether the reasons given may be said to be sustainable reasons legally? 3. The brief facts are these :--Plaintiff filed the suit inter alia seeking a permanent injunction restraining defendant and also made an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction. It is asserted that no temporary injunction was granted ex parte. Notices appear to have been directed and parties have entered appearance and respondents even filed their written statement. I.A. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-30-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2676; 1989(2)KarLJ364
Rama Jois, J.1. This appeal is presented by the appellant under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, read with Section 18 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, against the order of the District Judge, Karwar, dismissing the application presented by the appellant under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act.2. The facts of the case, in brief are these: The appellant had earlier filed Original Suit No. 46 of 1969 before the Court of Munsiff, Kumta, praying for a declaration that one had become the owner of certain immoveable properties and the respondent had no right or interest in the said property. The claim was based upon a will said to have been executed by Bhikki @ Bhagirathi the grand mother of the appellant. The suit was decreed and the Judgment and decree of the Munsiff was confirmed by Civil Judge, Karwar in R.A.No. 178 of 1972. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the respondent had preferred R.S.A. No. 224 of 1976 before this Court. That second appeal was allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-01-1989
Reported in : ILR1990KAR2195
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The first Writ Petition (W.P.No. 10966/89), is filed by the Karnataka State Cine Junior Artists' Association, represented by its President and the second petition (W.P.No. 12233/89) is filed by the two-persons, the first of whom is a Professor of Kannada and the second is a Reader in Kannada, Vijaya College. They claimed to be interested in the advancement of Kannada -language and the interests of Kannadigas, inter alia, the promotion and encouragement of Kannada-films and the Kannada film industry in the Karnataka State.2. Both the petitions are filed as public interest litigation and have challenged the Government Order dated 13th June 1989 granting 50% entertainment-tax under Sections 3C(i)(a) and 4A(i) of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 (the Act) to the Kannada Feature Film - 'SHARAVEGADA SARADARA'.3. The State of Karnataka, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Director of Information and Publicity are respondents-1 to 3 to the Writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-23-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1159; ILR1989KAR3572; 1990(1)KarLJ201
Navadgi, J.1. The proceedings in the top noted matter have been registered on the basis of the order dated October 11, 1984 made by a Division Bench of this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 206/80. The proceedings came to be registered and initiated against Y. K. Subbanna, Kamaiah, K. Jayaramm, Y. K. Ramakrishna, Smt. Marakka and Smt. Shantamma - Accused Nos. 1 to 6 respectively - who would be hereinafter referred to as accused with reference to their respective array, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following circumstances : 2. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are related to each other. Their relationship inter se is as under : Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are to sons of accused No. 2. Accused No. 5 is the wife of accused No. 2. Accused No. 6 is the wife of accused No. 4. 3. Accused No. 1 was the plaintiff in the original suit No. 20 of 1972. The suit was for partition and separate possession of his (accused No. 1's) share in the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-27-1989
Reported in : [1990]79STC351(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner in all the revision petitioner was assessed under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), regarding the sale of articles called 'medicinal oxygen' and 'nitrous oxide' used for the purpose of anaesthesia, by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, for the years 1973-74 to 1976-77. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, however, invoked his power under section 21 of the Act and held that the classification was wrong and treated the oxygen as falling within entry 121 of the Second Schedule to the treated the Act. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was affirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Hence these revision petitions. 2. The short question for consideration is, whether the oxygen called 'medicinal oxygen' falls within entry 121 of the Second Schedule The said entry reads as follows : 'Industrial gas, such as oxygen, Thirteen per cemt'.acetylene, nitrogen and the like.3. According to Sri S. G. Sund...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1081; 1989(1)KarLJ409
ORDERBopanna, J.1. Issues in this election petition were settled on 30-11-1988 and the case was posted for trial on 23-1-1989. Parties had filed their respective lists of documents and witnesses as directed by this Court and the case was taken up for trial on 23-1-1988. On that day Respondent-2 filed an application under Section 151, Order 14 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (In short the Act). In that application he had made the following prayer:a) that issue numbers 1 and 2 be tried as preliminaryminary issues. A finding thereon in favour of Respondent No. 2 will dispose of Issues 3 to 7, 14 and 16, and obviate recording of voluminous evidence;b) that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 83 of the Act the petition should be dismissed in limine and as that question is a pure question of law which could be decid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-03-1989
Reported in : [1991]70CompCas86(Kar)
Bopanna, J. 1. In all these applications, a common question of law relating to the power of the company court for making appropriate orders in regard to the priorities of the various claimants under the provisions of section 446 read with section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Act'), arises. 2. In Company Application NO. 610 of 1988, filed under section 537 of the Act, the applicant is the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (in short, 'the KSFC'), and it has sought for an order by this court directing the release of the assets of the company 9in liquidation) by the official liquidator to KSFC and for leave and permission to sell the said assets under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, 'the SFC Act'). The ground for making this application is that the KSFC has to recover a large sum of money from the respondent-company (in liquidation) and these sums are covered by the security of the assets of the respondent-company(in liquidation )...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-10-1989
Reported in : (1989)80CTR(Kar)15; ILR1990KAR404; [1989]180ITR585(KAR); [1989]180ITR585(Karn)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In these four petitions presented by the same person praying for quashing the order passed by the Settlement Commission (Income-tax and Wealth-tax) constituted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the following two questions of law arise for consideration : '(1) Whether a person who approaches the Income-tax Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a full and final settlement of his case is entitled to question the legality of its decision in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what is the scope for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India against a decision of the Settlement Commission ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was a regular assessee being assessed to income-tax the provision of the Act. He was the managing director of Internation Inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-29-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Kant56; ILR1989KAR1430
ORDER1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since the facts are common in all these petitions and certain common questions of law arise for consideration in all these petitions.2. En W.P. Nos. 14386 to 14390 of 1987. she petitioners are the builders, owners of high rise residential apartment buildings and it is common ground that they had put up these high rise buildings in accordance with the plans sanctioned by the Corporation of City of Bangalore which is the 1st respondent herein. They are aggrieved by the notices issued by the Corporation which are produced as Annexure-A to E in these petitions. By those notices, the Commissioner for Corporation who is the 1st respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) had called upon the petitioners to bring down the height of the building to 35' 55' with ground floor plus two, four upper floors respectively within 30 days from the date of receipt of these notices failing which they were warned that suitable act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-31-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1701; 1989(2)KarLJ548
Ad-interim ex parte injunction granted to plaintiff preventing interference with performance of duties and functions as Chara Charajangama Pattadhikari and Uttaradhikari to the office of Matadhipathi of Sri Siddaganga Mutt, being vacated after hearing both sides; in Appeal: Held:(i) Grant of ad-interim injunction has to course through the following slots: (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; (iii) irreparable injury to - the plaintiff, and (iv) lastly, all injunctions- being absolutely discretionary in nature whether there was any overriding consideration that supported the refusal of the injunction by the Court-below. (ii) The existence of a prima facie casein the matter of granting injunction is reallythe harbinger or the all clear sign to go aheadin investigating other aspects of the questiongoverning the grant or refusal of injunction.If there was no prima facie case at all or thecase put forward was so weak and tainted havingvery little prospect of being accepted by ...
Tag this Judgment!