Karnataka Court October 1998 Judgments

A.V. Amarnathan and Another Vs. Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Ka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1999Kant404; ILR1999KAR478; 2000(1)KarLJ205

ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed in the nature of public interest litigation by the Advocates of this Court assailing the Clauses 2 and 6 of the Note appended to cause list dated 5th January, 1998 and the notification dated 8-7-1997 (hereinafter called 'The impugned orders') issued by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Karnataka High Court, in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court.2. The petitioners are the practising Advocates of this Court. It is contended that the impugned note and notification are contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, Rules and the Constitution of India and therefore is liable to be quashed.3. The Government Advocate contended that the impugned orders are legal and issued in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, Mysore High Court Act and Rules framed thereunder. There is no unconstitutionality, so the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4. To ap...

T.V.M. College of Pharmacy, Bellary Vs. Gulbarga University

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ400

ORDER1. The petitioner-Institution is conducting degree courses in Pharmacy. Earlier it was affiliated with the respondent Gulbarga University constituted under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 ('the State Universities Act', in short). The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the notification dated 28-10-1997 issued by the University (Annexure-A) requiring the petitioner-Institution to file application for affiliation by paying a fee of Rs. 27,500/- as annual fee and another sum of Rs. 27,500/- for continuation of affiliation.2. Sri L.M. Chidanandayya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has questioned the validity of the impugned notification at Annexure-A on the ground that after coming into force of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (in short, 'the Health Sciences University Act') with effect from 1-6-1996, all the colleges in the State of Karnataka imparting education in Health Sciences which includes Pharmacy have by opera...

Sumithra Bai Vs. M. Vasantha Shet

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ140

ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner in H.R.R.P. No. 1650 of 1996 and the landlord is the petitioner in H.R.R.P. No. 1809 of 1996. Since both the petitions arise out of a common order made in H.R.C. No. 235 of 1987 by the Court of Principal Munsiff at Mangalore, both the petitions were taken up for final hearing together and disposed of by this common order.2. The parties, in the course of this order, will be referred to as 'the landlord' and 'the tenant'.3. A few facts which may be relevant for the disposal of these revision petitions may be stated as hereunder:(a) The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(c) and (h) of the Act. It is the case of the landlord that he is a hereditary trustee of his family deity Sri Mahalaxmi Ravalanatha Devaru and the said deity is installed in a portion of the residential building wherein he is residing and the premises presently occupied by him is totally insufficient and inconvenient for the purpose of his occupation. It is his ...

Narayan Ganesh Shindagi Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of B ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR1464; 2000(1)KarLJ69

ORDER1. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person aged about 72 years old. The petitioner was the absolute owner of the property bearing No. 506 out of R.S. Survey No. 831/2 in the heart of Belgaum City. The property consisted of a residential house and a structure wherein the petitioner was carrying on the business of firewood and coal. The total measurement of the property was 735.79 square yards. The petitioner was in possession of the property since 1955.2. This being the case, it is submitted that the officials of the 1st respondent came to the premises on 8-4-1994 with about 100 employees and bulldozers and started demolishing the building by taking the law in their hands. Since it was the weekend followed by Ugadi festival, the petitioner could not approach the Court. Taking advantage of the difficulty in which the petitioner was placed, the respondents offered an alternative site to the petitioner bearing CST 220 measuring about 2,000 square feet. It is not disputed tha...

Smt. Rathnamma Vs. B.A. Srinivasa Gupta and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ577

1. These two appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 13th of October, 1998 passed by XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on I.As. I and IV filed in O.S. No. 10169 of 1998, dismissing I.A. I filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction and allowing LA. IV filed by the defendants for vacating the ex parte injunction.2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are:The present plaintiff-appellant had filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen or their agents and servants from demolishing the temple of lord Eshwara as well as restraining them from putting up construction and from digging foundation as well as from changing the nature of the property etc., till disposal of the suit.The plaintiff has stated that the property in dispute namely, Late Muniswamappa Choultry or Maestry Mariyappa Choultry comprises in its fold a temple of Lord Eshwara alleged to be situated on the land measuring one and a half acres bearing old Sy. N...

Narayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR582; 1999(1)KarLJ595

ORDER1. This is a second round litigation.2. The facts very briefly are: The lands bearing Sy. Nos. 66 to 72 of Ananthapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, measuring about 2 acres 5 guntas are owned by the petitioner and his family.3. The Deputy Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling issued a notice dated 8-11-1996 requiring the petitioner to file a declaration under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition questioning the notice in W.P. No. 2484 of 1997 and this Court by its order dated 20-6-1997 disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file his objections to the impugned notice and the second respondent was directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders in the light of certain factual and legal observations.5. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order in the above writ petition are extracted below:'(6) The lands are admittedly situated in...

Gram Panchayat, Ugargol Village, Parasadgad Taluk, Belgaum District Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ120

ORDERThe petitioner, in this petition, is a Village Panchayat.2. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the orders dated 11th of July, 1997 and 6th of September, 1997, copies of which have been produced as Annexure-E and F issued by the first respondent-State and the third respondent-Deputy Commissioner respectively.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-Panchayat consists of Ugargol, Harlapur and Yellammana Tanda villages. It is claimed that it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to look after general welfare of the inhabitants of the village and also to promote breeding of cattle, poultry and other livestock and it is one of the functions of the Panchayat to maintain grazing lands and to prevent its unauthorised alienation and use. As can be seen from the averments made in the petition, there was a gomal land measuring 329 acres 25 guntas in Block No. 992; 654 acres 29 guntas in Block No. 993; 615 acres in Block No. 953; and 286 acre...

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Vasantha Rao Alias V ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001ACJ603; 2000(1)KarLJ200

ORDER1. This is the insurer's appeal questioning the liability fastened by the Claims Tribunal, Bijapur in MVC No. 292 of 1987.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The parents of the deceased Raghavendra filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 3,17,000/- on account of his death in the Motor Vehicle accident that took place on 2-6-1987 at about 5.00 p.m. near Managoli Village on Bijapur Basavana Bagewadi Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo bearing Registration No. MYJ 7972 by its driver while the deceased was accompanying as a passenger in the said vehicle.3. The respondents filed statement of objections resisting the claim petition.4. The claimants examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and produced Exts. P. 1 to P. 11 whereas the respondent examined R.W. 1 and produced the policy of insurance marked as Ext. R. 1.5. The Claims Tribunal considering the evidence and the police records held that the accident took place...

Gem Properties Private Limited, Tumkur Vs. Regional Provident Fund Com ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1999(82)FLR414]; ILR1999KAR842; 1999(2)KarLJ129; (1999)IILLJ105Kant

ORDER1. The respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, after an enquiry under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('Act' for short), has determined as at Annexure-H, that the petitioner is liable to be covered under the Act with effect from 1-9-1985 in respect of eligible employees. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks quashing of the said Annexure-H.2. Petitioner was earlier being called as Gem Exports Private Limited and was incorporated as such under the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1980. It is taken as an admitted position that from 1980 to 1985, petitioner was engaged only in trading and commerce activity which would make it an establishment, to which the Act would apply in view of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, since admittedly, trading and commerce activity was an activity in respect of which a notification had been issued by the Central Government under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act. The...

C. Dinakar Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. Alleging mala fides attributed to the second respondent and violation of all norms and rules pertaining to service jurisprudence, the senior-most IPS Officer in the State has sought justice to vindicate his position, which is alleged to have been lowered down by reducing him in status and subjecting him to humiliation by placing him virtually under subordination of respondent 4, admittedly much junior Police Officer in the IPS Cadre. Court has been moved to protect the interests of the higher Police Officers and other civil servants by relieving them from the alleged clutches of the politicians by providing a credible mechanism for their promotion, particularly the selection of the Police Chief in the State. Effective measures are prayed to be provided to give credibility to the services by providing them security of tenure by protecting their status under the rules keeping in view their seniority, performance, merit and reputation.Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in...