Karnataka Court May 1993 Judgments
Karnataka Elecy. Board Vs. B. Harish Malya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ823Kant
K.A. Swami Ag. C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order, dated June 3, 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10851 of 1992. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order challenged in the writ petition and directed the appellant to consider the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate grounds within three months from the date of receipt of the order.2. Contention of the appellant is that the respondent's father died on November 23, 1971 and on that date respondent was 12 years old as such he attained majority in the year 1977; whereas the application was filed on June 21, 1983 long after the expiry of three years from the date of attaining majority; therefore it was beyond time; hence the learned single Judge was not justified in directing the appellant to consider the application.3. Paragraph 5 of the Scheme contained in the Official Memorandum, dated April 16, 1986 in No. KEB:B5:721:80-81-Annexure-C to the writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. B. Harish Malya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1771; 1993(2)KarLJ361
K.A. Swami, Ag.C.J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 3rd June 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10851 of 1992. Learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order challenged in the Writ Petition and directed the appellant to consider the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate grounds within three months from the date of receipt of the order.2. Contention of the appellant is that the respondent's father died on 23.11.1971 and on that date respondent was 12 years old, as such he attained majority in the year 1977; whereas the application was filed on 21.6.1983 long after the expiry of three years from the date of attaining majority; therefore it was beyond time; hence the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellant to consider the application.3. Paragraph 5 of the Scheme contained in the Official Memorandum dated 16.4.1986 in No. KEB: B5: 721:80-81 - Annexure C - to the Writ Petition, ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Venkatesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2226; 1994(3)KarLJ376
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition has sought for a declaration that the appointment of the third respondent as the Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka is ultravires of the Constitution and he has further sought for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to remove the third respondent from the office of the Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka.2. The petitioner (party in person) contended that under the Constitution of India, nowhere there is a provision made for appointment of Deputy Chief Minister of a State; such an appointment results in heavy burden to the public exchequer and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have acted without authority of law in appointing the third respondent as the Deputy Chief Minister.3. It is true that nowhere in the Constitution of India there is any reference to the post of a Deputy Chief Minister. But, the third respondent is also a member in the Council of Ministers though he has been described as Deputy Chief Minister. However, this de...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gokulkrishna Vs. M.C. Nanaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-13-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1615; 1993(2)KarLJ259
1. The fourth respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. Respondents-1 and 2 before us are the petitioners who filed the Writ Petition. The third respondent in the Writ Petition is ranked as 5th respondent in this Appeal, while the second respondent is the 4th respondent before us. The Writ Petition seems to have been filed on 16th July 1992. On 22.9.1992 the learned Single Judge ordered the State Government not to make any further payment to the appellant and the said order was continued thereafter. The Writ Petition was allowed on 3.12.1992.2. The petitioners sought the quashing of a Government Order dated 31.3.1992 whereby approval was accorded for purchase of 100 numbers of Apple Macintosh Computer Systems from M/s. Classik Computer Systems ('the appellant') at a total cost of Rs. 5.27 crores, with the configuration stated therein, and, which shall be subject to the approval of the High Power Committee and the Technical Advisory Panel. The order also approved release of 30% ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarojamma Vs. Shankar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-13-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2427
N.D.V. Bhat, J1. These three Appeals are preferred against a common order dated 7.4.1993 passed by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 1869/1993 on I.A.Nos. I, ill and V respectively. M.F.A. No. 821/93 is directed against the order passed on I.A.No. I, M.F.A. No. 820/93 is directed against the order passed on I.A.HI and M.F.A. (FR) No. 902/1993 is directed against the order passed on l.A.No.V. All these appeals are preferred by the defendants in the aforesaid suit.2. Since common questions of facts are involved in all these three Appeals and with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing on either side, all these three Appeals have been taken up for final disposal together.3. The facts relevant for the disposal of these three Appeals, briefly stated, are as under:Plaintiff-respondent filed O.S.No. 1869/93 against the defend ants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants) praying for a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restrain...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›