Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1983KAR223; 1984(2)KarLJ185
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2221 of 1982 is filed by defendant-2 and is directed against the order dated 8-7-1982 of the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No- 8041 of 1980 brought by Respondents 1 to 3 as Plaintiffs in that suit. Civil Revision Petition No. 2995 of 1982 is filed by the State of Karnataka against the very same order of the Learned Judge. But, in that case the State has filed a memo on 30-3-1983 praying for permission to withdraw the same, which has given rise to Writ Petition No. 7525 of 1983 by one Sri G.P. Shivaprakash, an Advocate of this Court. In the course of my order hereafter, I will refer to those who are parties in O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 by their array in that suit, the State of Karnataka, Petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2995 of 1982 which is Respondent-I in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 1983 as the State and Sri G. P. Shivaprakash, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 198) as the Petitioner.2. In order to appreciate the severa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3487
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The Writ Petition is taken up with the consent of parties. In this Writ Petition the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) notified on 12.12.1997 at Annexure-E is being challenged. The amendment is with respect to Rule 17. 2. In Rule 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 in Sub-rule (1) for the word 'Registrar' the word 'Government' was to be substituted. The 1st petitioner is a Federation. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the members of the member societies of the 1st petitioner-Federation. 3. Various grounds have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Billappa. It was submitted that the amendment to the Rule under challenge is irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary and it gives unguided and unlimited power to the Government. It was also submitted that the Registrar was looking after the affairs of the societies for a number of years and no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1995Kant98
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 19/21-3-1994 Annexure 'D' and order dated 7-5-1994 Annexure 'E' issued by the second respondent University rejecting the eligibility and Admission of 20 students to the I Year B.Sc., Nursing Course for the academic year 1993-94 in their College.2. The petitioner is an Educational Trustwhich is running number of educational Institutions. In order to start the B.Sc., Nursing Course, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for grant of affiliation to start the above Course from the academic year 1993-94. On the said application, the second respondent University made a recommendation to the State Government by a letter dated 1-4-1993 to grant permission to the petitioner Trust to start B.Sc., Nursing Course from the academic year 1993-94. On the basis of the above recommendation the first respondent Government has passed an order evidenced by Annexure 'A' dated 17-9-1993 according sanction to the petitioner to start a Col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR218; 1994(1)KarLJ469
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question raised by the petitioners pertains to the Excise Year 1985 to 1986 (1.7.1985 to 30.6.1986). The petitioners question the demand issued consequent upon the Amendment of Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties) Rules, 1968 (in short 'the Rules'), under which, the duty was increased to Rs. 6/- from Rs. 4/- per bulk liter.2. The petitioners are Excise Contractors, According to them, they offered their bids on the assumption that the duty would be Rs. 4/- per bulk liter. However, after the commencement of the Excise Year which was on 1st of June, 1985, Rules were amended increasing the duty to Rs. 6/- per bulk liter with effect from 1.8.1985. The demands were issued on various dates somewhere in the year 1987 claiming difference in the duties paid by the petitioners. Mr. A.G. Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:(i) The amended Rules, under which the duty was increased from Rs. 4/- to Rs. 6/- substituted the earlier Rule an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR3081
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. These two Writ Petitions are referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court, which involve the interpretation of Section 118(1A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961 (referred as 'the Act').2. The question is, whether a decision of the Land Tribunal under Section 67 of the Act pertaining to the determination of the ceiling area is appealable to the Appellate Authority under the aforesaid Section 118(1A).3. Till the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (referred as the Ordinance hereinafter), it is an admitted fact that the decision of the tribunal under the Act was final in all respects and there was no provision for appeal against its order. However, the Ordinance which came into effect on 6th December, 1985 provided for an appeal against certain orders of the Land Tribunal. The Ordinance amended Section 48A by deleting the words 'the order of the Tribunal under this Section shall be final and', ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR4019; 1998(6)KarLJ576
ORDER1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner calls in question the legality and the correctness of the order of the third respondent-the Munsiff and JMFC, K.R. Pet, Mandya district dated 21-12-1996 in Election Petition No. 8 of 1994. Annexure-A is the copy of the said order.2. Briefly stated the facts are:Petitioner C. Ramappa and first respondent-B. Bolegowda were elected to Bookinakere Grama Panchayat, K.R. Pet Taluk, Mandya district in the election held in the month of December 1993. It is undisputed that the petitioner was elected from the Modur-1 General Constituency and the first respondent from Bookinakere-3 Constituency reserved for Backward Class. The second respondent called for a meeting on 18-3-1994 for the election of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Bookinakere Grama Panchayat. It is also undisputed that the office of Adhyaksha was reserved for Backward Class and the office of Upadhyaksha for general-women. In the meeti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1987Kant122
ORDER1. This matter is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondent and after hearing the Counsel for parties.2. The matter arises thus: The Ist petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. 1960, thereinafter referred to as the Act) having its office at Basavakalvan in Bidar District. Among other things, its main objects are to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice for which purpose it is incorporated and registered under the Act. It was promoted in 1972 by 9 Muslims. Petitioner No. 2, in this writ petition, is its President. The petitioners have asserted that the Muslims are a minority in the State of Karnataka, both on the basis of the language spoken and the religion professed by them. They have furnished a copy of the Memorandum of Association and rules and regulations of the 1st petitioner-Society. They have asserted that the membership is open only to Muslims. Since 1972, it has establis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant384; ILR2001KAR3988; 2001(4)KarLJ431
ORDER1. The appellant herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of one-fifth share in the plaint schedule properties and consequential reliefs in O.S. No. 41 of 1992, on the file of the Civil Judge, Bhadravati. The plaintiff valued the suit for partition for the purpose of jurisdiction as Rs. 15 lakhs and valued of his one-fifth share as Rs. 3 lakhs. Plaintiff claimed that he was in joint possession of the suit properties, and paid a fixed Court fee of Rs. 200/- under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act'). He also paid additional Court fee of Rs. 100.00 in regard to the consequential relief of permanent injunction under Section 26(c) of the Act. In para 9 of the plaint, the plaintiff averred thus:'.....The plaintiff used to visit the native place frequently and looked after the schedule properties and in joint possession of the said properties. Plaintiff is the joint owner of all the properties morefully described...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1994Kant174; ILR1993KAR1936; 1993(2)KarLJ419
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. 201 of 1985, on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore against his order dated 24th September, 1992, allowing I.A. No. VIII and permitting the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) to amend the plaint, as sought for by him.2. Respondents 2 to 4 herein are defendants 5 to 7 in the lower Court. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to by the rank they hold in the lower Court.3. The facts, giving raise to this petition, may briefly be stated as hereunder:The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. 201/85, on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, against the defendants, who are the wife and children of one late K. Rama Rao for a declaration that he is entitled to continue in possession of the suit property by virtue of part performance of an agreement to sell dated 5-5-1978 executed by Rama Rao and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ685
ORDER1. The question involved herein is short but of far reaching effect. It pertains to the jurisdiction of the Tribunals constituted under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act').2. The above question has arisen in the context of the order dated 26-3-1997 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent Land Tribunal. This order has been passed by the Tribunal in the guise of its jurisdiction under Section 48A of the Act. This order pertains to an agricultural land measuring 2 acres 1 gunta of Sy. No. 12/2 of Gattahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.3. It is not in dispute that Smt. Sarvamangala and her mother late Chennabasamma were owners of the land in question as on 1-3-1974. According to the petitioners, this land was sold by the owners jointly to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 26-2-1988 (Annexure-A) on a representation that it was not a tenanted land. It is a matter of rec...
Tag this Judgment!