Karnataka Court September 2011 Judgments
Munikempaiah, Bangalore South Taluk Vs. the State of Karnataka, Repres ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2011
(Prayer: This WP filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-A Order dated 2.6.2011 passed by the Second Respondent, in Revision Petition No.4/2011-12 in respect of Land bearing Survey No.76 of Hemmigepura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and etc.) 1. The present writ petition brings out in a vivid manner as to how the State and its revenue officials have been misusing the power under the provisions of not only the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 [for short ‘KIAD Act’] but also powers under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short ‘the KLR Act’]. 2. Writ petitioner claims to be a person of 98 years and has interest in old Sy.No.76, new Sy.No.76/1 measuring an extent of 2 acres 11 guntas at Hemmigepura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 3. The version of the petitioner is that though he had acquired the extent of 2 acres 30 guntas in the survey number by...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Ravishankar and Another Vs. C.K. Ravishankar S/O Late Yajaman Kal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2011
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to appoint an arbitrator to determine the dispute between the parties to pass any other order or direction in the circumstances of the case.) 1. The facts briefly stated are as follows: The petitioners and the respondents are said to be partners of a registered partnership firm. Shivagiri Associates. It is stated that initially one H. Shivakumar and respondent No.2 constituted the firm. The business was quarrying of granite and other minerals, as per the original deed dated 16-6-2004. The firm was re-constituted under a deed dated 20-8-2008, and the petitioners and the respondents are said to be the partners under that deed. The first respondent was said to be the managing partner. He is incidentally the husband of the second respondent. It is alleged that the first respondent along with the other respondents began t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Megha and Others Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and Another
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Sep-05-2011
PATIL, J 1. Assailing the correctness or otherwise of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ notices moved against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, both dated 2nd September 2011 issued to petitioners 1 and 2, by second Respondent vide Annexures A and B, petitioners have presented this Writ Petition. 2. The facts brief are that, the first petitioner is the Adhyaksha, second petitioner is the Upadhyaksha and petitioners 3 to 6 are the members of the Town Municipal Council, Aland, Gulbarga District. They have called in question the impugned notices, issued to petitioners 1 and 2 , calling for Special General Body Meeting on 6th September 2011 at 11.00 a.m. for moving ‘No Confidence Motion’ against them. 3. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and perused the entire material available on file. 4. It is the specific contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners that, the impugned notices issued are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Karnatak...
Tag this Judgment!Srinath Hegde, Bangalore and Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authorit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
(Prayer: These W.P’s filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the respondents and declare that the acquisition of land initiated by the respondents, pursuant to notification dated 3.1.1977 issued under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, 1976 by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-G, and notification dated 2.8i.1978, issued under Section 19(1) by the 2nd respondent of the BDA Act, 1976 vide Annexure-G1 has lapsed/is abandoned, in so far as the petition schedule property is concerned.) 1. Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] and the manner of its functioning is rather difficult to fathom. BDA is a development authority within the meaning of the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 [for short, the Act] in respect of metropolitan area of Bangalore city and also planning authority within the meaning of this phrase as it occurs in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, has been on the other hand an au...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›