Karnataka Court August 2008 Judgments

Shri N.G. Samaraju (President) S/O G. Ningappa and Shri Ramesh Balekun ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2009NOC710; 2009(1)AIRKarR25; 2009(2)KCCR1076

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ Petition by persons who held the post of President and Vice President of the Mysore Kirloskar Kelasagarara Sangha, who are aggrieved by an order passed by the 8th respondent - Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society on 11.12.2006 (copy produced as Annexure-D to the Writ Petition), disqualifying the petitioners from holding the posts of President and Vice President respectively and also disqualifying them to hold such elected post for a period of 3 years from the date of the order in exercise of his power under Section 29(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.2. Petitioners though have remedy of appeal to the higher authority namely the Deputy Registrar, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader appearing for 8th respondent and Sri Mahesh Uppin, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6 have bypassed the appellate remedy and have come up with the present Writ Petition, contending, inter alia, that the impugned order ha...

Daffodils English School Represented by Its Secretary, Mr. P.K. Beemai ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. In this set of petitions, petitioners have challenged the Government Order dated 30.3.02 passed in continuation of the Government Order dated 29.4.94 regarding language policy wherein the State Government has extended Kannada as Medium of Instruction fox 5th standard also as a medium of instruction, wherein in the earlier Government Order it had directed the schools recognized by the State to have Kannada as medium of instruction from 1st standard to 4th standard.2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Vijay Shankar for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Government Advocate Sri. B/Manohar.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in : ILR2008KAR2895 in the case of Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Department of Education and Ors. wherein Clauses 2, 3, 6 & 8 of the Government Order dated 2...

Hanumappa and ors. Vs. Chikkannaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3993; 2009(1)KarLJ269

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. In this appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs, the only question involved is, whether the Trial Court is right in holding that, the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC was liable to rejection. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the plaint.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants contends that, if the plaint allegations containing the material facts are read together in proper perspective, 'a cause of action' has clearly been pleaded and the Trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that, it does not disclose any cause of action. Learned Counsel further contends that, the impugned order of the Trial Court is wholly erroneous, in stating that, Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC is also attracted.3. We have perused the plaint in O.S. No. 1692/06 and copies of documents filed by the plaintiffs, along with the plaint, in the Trial Court. After perusal of the pleading in the plaint, in our o...

B.M. Uttappa Vs. K.U. Sumi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ639; ILR2008KAR4963

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Revision is directed against the judgment in C.C. No. 9/2002 dated 6th September 2006 on the file of J.M.F.C, Madikeri confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in Criminal Appeal No. 88/2006 dated 25th June 2007.2. Respondent is the complainant. She filed a complaint for an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. Her case is that, accused is her husband and the marriage was according to Kodava Community custom and under Hindu Mitakshara Law. The marriage was solemnized on 2.5.1994. After the marriage, accused started ill-treating her and took all her jewels by promising her that, he would keep them in the Bank locker. Within few days thereafter, he left to Saudi Arabia where, he is now working. Every time when she asked him where are the jewels, he informed that they are kept in a locker in Canara Bank, Virajpet. Thereafter, complainant came to know that the accused had sold the jewels clandestinely. The other accused are her mother-in-law, sis...

Siddeshwara International Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Se ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1356; 2009(3)KCCRSN99; 2009(4)AIRKarR367

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2nd September, 2006 as per Annexure-A and the order dated 19th December 2006, as per Annexure-B and for a declaration that no permission is required either from the Central Government or the State Government for mining in an area less than 5 Hectares.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of mining. It was granted a mining lease dated 13th June, 2005 for a period of 20 years for an extent of 12.10 acres in Sy. No. 121 of Hogrehalli village, Kadur Taluk, Birur Hobli, Chikamagalur District vide ML No. 2491. Annexure-C is the copy of the mining lease. The petitioner is the owner of the property in respect of which the mining lease was granted. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board by their letter dated 8th August, 2005 gave their consent for the establishment of mining industry. Annexure-D is the copy of the said letter. The Deputy Co...

S.R. Nelivigi Vs. the Advocate General State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1220; ILR20084KAR4853

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing the order dated 19.12.2005 at Annexure-B, on the file of respondent No. 1/ Advocate General, and direct the respondent No. 1 to grant consent to institute criminal contempt of Court proceedings against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition may be stated as under:The petitioner claims that he is a Senior Member of Haveri Bar Association and an Advocate for the plaintiffs in OS No. 9/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Haveri. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-Managing Partner of the 2nd defendant/Firm in the Suit had filed a written statement on 23.5.2005 through the 3rd respondent/Advocate. The petitioner has pleaded that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are hand in glove with each other and with common intention, have made false allegations against the...

The State of Karnataka Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Karnatak ...

Court: Karnataka

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The appellants aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.06.2006 awarding 12 per cent interest per annum for the belated settlement of the pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner who is now represented by his legal heir have tiled this appeal through the Government Advocate.2. The main contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the management was responsible for the alleged delay as the management tailed to furnish the necessary details to the office of the Accountant General for settlement of the pensionary benefits of the deceased 1st respondent at the earliest.3. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted the relief as prayed for by awarding interest at 12 per cent per annum for the delayed period as there is no dispute that there was a delay in settling the pensionary benefits and the above view is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.S. Abdull...

Mallikarjun Mallur Vs. State by Lokayukta Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ126;

ORDERR.B. Naik, J.1. A case in Crime No. 1 of 2003 is registered in Belgaum Lokayukta Station for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against Mallikarjun Mallur-accused-petitioner and Chandrakant Sateri Gurav-accused 2. The complainant is one Vajra Kumar of H. Ugar, Athani Taluk. On 20-1-2003, he lodged a complaint as against two accused persons. The complainant has alleged that himself and few persons belonging to his community intended to register an association in the name of Sri Bhagawan Mahaveer Alpasankhyatara Vividodeshagala Sahakara Sangha. They wanted to get it registered. On 5-10-2002 along with the necessary documents, they went to the office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chikkodi and through the said office, requisition was made for registration in the office of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Belgaum. The papers were forwarded by the Assistant Registrar with ...

Chikkenkoppada Channaveera Sharanara Andhara Kalyan Ashram and anr. Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR4817; 2009(5)KarLJ365

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. We have heard the learned Government Advocate.2. The first petitioner is a Trust registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and the second petitioner is a Citizen's Forum. Both of them have approached this Court complaining that public functions such as bundhs, hurtles, strikes, gheraos, processions, rallies, protests and other political gatherings are permitted near Rani Chennamma Circle in Hubli causing disturbance to the traffic and put the public at large in great inconvenience.3. Petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus to respondents, who are State of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner of Dharwad and Police Commissioner of Hubli to make alternate arrangements for all those activities either in Nehru ground or Railway ground or any other suitable place at Hubli.4. In our considered opinion, the power to regulate grant of license for conducting public agitations, rallies, protests, publ...

The State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Chief Secretary and ors. Vs. Sri Sr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR5031; 2009(3)KarLJ674; 2009(1)KCCR153

A.S. Bopanna, J.1. In this batch of writ appeals, WA No. 5546/03 arises out of W.P. No. 34400/01, WA No. 5654/03 arises out of W.P. Nos. 25928-30/2001, WA No. 5743/03 and WA No. 5919/03 arise out of W.P. Nos. 27038-47/02. The first three appeals are by the State who were respondents in the respective Writ Petition while the fourth of the above noted appeal is by the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in the Writ Petition noted above. The Writ Petitions in the sequence mentioned above are by Sri Srikantadatta Narasimha Raja Wodeyar, who is the owner of the structure 'Janana Mantapa', the owners of the godowns and buildings as well as vacant sites in the vicinity.2. The common grievance of all the petitioners is against the impugned Notification declaring the 'Janana Mantapa' as a protected monument, the surrounding area as protected area and also the consequential order of the Lokayuktha and endorsement of Municipal Council since the same have effected the right to enjoyment of their respective pr...