Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1595
ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. In the first seven petitions, the petitioners representing Urdu, Marathi, Telugu and Tamil linguistic minorities in the State, have challenged the constitutional validity of the State Government's Order dated 20th July 1982, by which the study of Kannada was made a compulsory additional subject by children belonging to the respective linguistic minorities, who are having their primary education in mother-tongue from the first year of the primary school and as the sole first language, out of the three languages required to be studied in the High Schools and have prayed for its quashing and have also sought for the issue of appropriate consequential directions.2. Having regard to the National and Constitutional importance of the question arising for consideration in these petitions, the matters were referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The Division Bench in turn, referred questions relating to the constitutional validity of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2232; 1989(2)KarLJ499
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The petitioner is a licencee under the Karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorder(Regulation) Rules, 1984.2. On 27-12-1988 at about 11.00 P.M., the Circle Inspector of Police, Davanagere, found, on a surprise check, that the petitioner was exhibiting obscene films end submitted a report about the petitioner exhibiting obscene films in his video parlour to the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga and recommended for suspension of the licence issued to the petitioner. The District Magistrate (Deputy Commissioner), Chitradurga took action on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police and suspended the licence with effect from 24-1-1989.The District Magistrate's order dated - 24-1-89 (Annexure 'B') is reproduced below:-This order of the District Magistrate is challenged in this Writ Petition.3. It is seen from the order dated 2-1-1989 -(Annexure-'A') made by the District Magistrate that the licence had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant121; ILR1989KAR2095; 1989(2)KarLJ131
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under S.50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of dismissal passed by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge,Bangalore City, in H.R.C. No. 3456 of 1980 (Old No. 1726 of 1979), the eviction petition having been filed under S.21(1)(a), (d), (h) and (p) of the Act. On 1-8-1981, the petitioner filed an amended eviction petition in pursuance of an order passed by the trial Court dt. 23-7-1981 on I. A-V under O.6, R. 17, C.P.C.2. The material facts of the case are that the respondent is a tenant in occupation of residential premises No. 3, III Cross, Kempa-pura Agrahara, Magadi Road, Bangalore-23 paying a monthly rent of Rs. 42. / -. It is stated that the respondent is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and on 25-11-1971, the petitioner issued a legal notice through his Counsel alleging default in payment of arrears of rent commencing from 1-7-1971 and ending 30-10-1971, the arrear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR1286; 1989(2)KarLJ129
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners in this Revision Petition. They are aggrieved by the framing of a fresh issue, which reads thus:'Whether the plaintiffs prove that the said accident was due to the negligence of the defendant?'2. The suit is one for damages. According to the plaintiffs they entrusted with the defendant certain goods for transportation from Bangalore to Raichur. The goods were delivered in a damaged condition. According to the plaintiffs, the consignment was carried in a lorry which, while in transit on 11-10-1974 dashed against a transformer post and as a result of the accident the transformer caught fire and the goods in the said lorry got damaged on account of fire and in the course of fire fighting operations. The damaged consignments were collected by the defendant and despatched to the second plaintiff's office and was delivered at Bangalore. The accident aforesaid was caused due to the negligence of the defendant. At para-10 of the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners in this Revision Petition. They are aggrieved by the framing of a fresh issue, which reads thus:Whether the plaintiffs prove that the said accident was due to the negligence of the defendant?2. The suit is one for damages. According to the plaintiffs they entrusted with the defendant certain goods for transportation from Bangalore to Raichur. The goods were delivered in a damaged condition. According to the plaintiffs, the consignment was carried in a lorry which, while in transit on 11-10-1974 dashed against a transformer post and as a result of the accident the transformer caught fire and the goods in the said lorry got damaged on account of fire and in the course of fire fighting operations. The damaged consignments were collected by the defendant and despatched to the second plaintiff's office and was delivered at Bangalore. The accident aforesaid was caused due to the negligence of the defendant At para-10 of the plaint, the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR223; 1989(3)KarLJ425
ORDERSwami, J.1. As at the stage of Preliminary Hearing, on the direction of the Court, respondents 1 and 4 have put in appearance through Sri N. Devadas, learned Government Advocate and respondents 2 and 3 have put in appearance through Sri Castelino, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. Respondents 1 and 4 have filed a common statement of objections concerning this Writ Petition and W.P.Nos.18405 and 18415 of 1988. The learned Government Advocate has also produced the records of the case. Thus the petition is ready for final disposal. Hence Rule is issued and the petition is heard for final disposal.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 16-2-1989 passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore in No. PS.I.PA/8/ 88-89 produced as Annexure-E. This Order is passed pursuant to the direction issued by the State Government in its order dated 31-10-1989.3. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR798; 1989(3)KarLJ512
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of preliminary hearing, Sri N. Devadas, learned High Court Government Advocate was directed to lake notice for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri R.C. Castelino, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation to take notice for respondent No.2, Accordingly Sri N. Devadas has put In appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and Sri R.C. Castelino for respondent No.2. The respondents 1 and 3 have also filed a common statement of objections in these petitions and also in W.P.No.2951/1989 which is disposed of today by a separate order, : ILR1990KAR223 . These two petitions were heard along with W.P. No. 2951/1989.2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 25-1-1988 bearing No.HUD 314 MNY 86 passed by the State Government under clause (Mi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules') di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1991]72CompCas211(Kar)
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. By my order dated August 11, 1988 (See Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar v. Venkateswara Real Estate Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. [1990] 68 Comp Cas 216 (kar)), the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Company Petitions Nos. 32 and 67 of 1987 was overruled and the petitions were posted for grant of interim relief on September 2, 1988. Since the grant of interim relief is closely connected with the question of admission of these petitions, I have heard learned counsel on both these points. It may also be noticed that my order dated August 11, 1988 (See Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar v. Venkateswara Real Estate Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. (1990) 68 Comp Cas 216 (kar)), is pending in appeal in O.S.A. No. 10 of 1988 and, in the absence of any order by the Division Bench staying the operation of that order, there is no Bar for this court to here these petitions on the question of admission and interim relief.2. Company petitions Nos. 32 and 67 of 1987 ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1507; 1990(3)KarLJ13
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. Since both the cases involve common questions of fact and law, after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are disposed of by this common order.2. In Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1987, the petitioner has sought the quashing of Annexure-A which is an auction notification In respect of Toddy vending in Mysore District and for a Mandamus to permit the petitioner to withdraw the offer made by him and for refund of the earnest money deposit besides a Mandamus to the respondents not to confirm the bids in respect of the two taluks offered by the petitioner.3. In Writ Petition No. 1058 of 1987, the petitioner who is also an Excise Contractor has sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash Annexure-A which is a Gazette notification in regard to vending of Toddy in Mysore District in district wise basis and for a Mandamus to permit the petitioner to withdraw the offer and to refund the earnest money deposit besides a Mandamus directing the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1989(2)KarLJ317; [1989]75STC126(Kar)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner is common in these writ petitions. It is registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and is engaged, inter alia, in the sale of student note-books, the cost of which does not exceed Rs. 50 per book. 2. A notification dated 1st September, 1982 was issued by the Government of Karnataka under section 8-A of the Act exempting the tax payable under the Act on the sale of goods specified therein, with effect from 1st September, 1982. The relevant portion of the notification reads thus : 'In exercise of the powers conferred by section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby exempts with effect from first day of September, 1982, the tax payable under the said Act on the sale of goods specified in the Schedule below : * * *2. Student note-books, exercise books, copy books, outline maps, pencils, erasers, instrument boxes, dissection boxes, T-...
Tag this Judgment!