Court : Karnataka
- 1 - R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION Nos.17852-17856/2014 & 17969/2014 c/w W.P.Nos.17290/2014 & 17673-17687/2014, W.P.No.20626/2016 (LA-BDA) In W.P.Nos.17852-17856/2014 & 17969/2014 BETWEEN:1. M/S. EVERSHINE MONUMENTS (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. GRANITE EXPORTERS) A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.15, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, MR. MUNNAVAR BASHA AGED ABOUT83YEARS.2. MR. MUNNAVAR BASHA S/O. LATE MOHAMMED BASHA, AGED ABOUT83YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15 VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.3. MRS. MAQBOOL JAAN W/O. ASGAR AHAMAD PASHA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURAM, KUPPAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 517 425.4. MRS. MUDASHIRA BEGUM D/O. ASGAR AHAMAD PASHA, AGED ABOUT45YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURAM, KUPPAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 517 425.5. MRS. REHANA BEGUM D/O. ASGAR AHAMAD PASHA, - 2 - AGED ABOUT40YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURAM, KUPPAM, ANDHRA PRAD...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE9H DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION Nos.3536-3538/2015 & WRIT PETITION No.3539/2015 (LA-KIADB) S/O. NARAPPA, AGED ABOUT53YEARS, S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS, S/O. MURIGEPPA, AGED ABOUT46YEARS, BETWEEN:1. D. SHARANAPPA2 D. JAYAPPA3 B.M. SHIVAKUMAR4 B. MANJAPPA5 D. BASAVARAJA S/O. NARAPPAM, AGED ABOUT48YEARS, (BY SRI: P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:1. ALL ARE R/AT MAHAJENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 601. S/O. H.B. REVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS ... PETITIONERS STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, #14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, 2 BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.3.4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE27H DAY OF APRIL, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NOs.15967-15969/2017 c/w 21196/2017, 18876/2016 & 18948-18950/2016 (LA-BDA) & 21193-21195/2017 (BDA) W.P.Nos.15967-15969/2017 BETWEEN:1. SRI S. HAREESH S/O. LATE N. SHANTHARAM, AGED ABOUT52YEARS, 73/52, 2ND FLOOR, CHANDRA APARTMENT, 4TH CROSS, BASAWESHWAR LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040.2.3. SRI M.S. SHANMUKHA S/O. M.K. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT36YEARS, MUDDALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMGONDALU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 132. SRI S. GURUPRASAD S/O. LATE N. SHANTHARAM, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, NO.24, 13TH CROSS, GAYATHRI LAYOUT, BASAVANAPURA ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE 560 036. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, - 2 - 2.3. 4.5. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001. THE BANGALORE DEV...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.1633 OF2019(GM-KEB) PETITIONERBETWEEN : HASSAN THERMAL POWER PVT. LTD., THRU ITS DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: S-327 GREATER KAILASH-II NEW DELHI- 110 048 (SRI.ANOOP GEORGE CHAUDHARI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH MRS.JUNE CHAUDARI, MR. R K MAROOLA, MR.SUNIL MAREELA, MS.PRATHIBA SHARMA, MS.ISHA THAKUR ADVS for SRI K S BHEEMAIAH ) AND:_ 1.2. (BY SRI V SREENIDHI, AGA FOR R.1, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., THRU ITS FINANCIAL ADVISOR (REGULATORY AFFAIRS) REGD. OFFICE KAVERI BHAWAN K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 009 STATE OF KARNATAKA THRU ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 RESPONDENTS2SRI S S NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI S SRIRANGA FOR C/R.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:17. 12.2018 PASSED ELEC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- :1. :- R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE01T DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA W.A.No.1415/2018 (LA BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. L.RAMAREDDY, SON OF LATE LINGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT73YEARS, RESIDING AT No.10/1, 26TH MAIN ROAD, HSR LAYOUT, AGARA VILLAGE, AGARA POST, BENGALURU 560 034. APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE) AND:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.2. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560 020.3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, - :2. :- KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560 020.4. NANDA RANGASWAMY, WIFE OF RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT38YEARS, RESIDING AT No.213, D BLOCK, BRIGADE PALM SPRING APARTMENT, J.P.NAGAR7H PHASE, BENGALURU 560 078.5. SHAMEEM FATIMA, WIFE OF M.ENAYATH ULLA SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT59YEARS, REPRESENTED BY G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - WP No.10103 of 2020 C/W WP No.12483 of 2020 WP No.12537 of 2020 WP No.14110 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF JULY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.10103 OF2020(LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.12483 OF2020WRIT PETITION No.12537 OF2020WRIT PETITION No.14110 OF2021IN W.P. NO.10103/2020 BETWEEN:1. SHRI. MANOHAR PATEL.R AGED ABOUT46YEARS S/O RAMU.R @ V.R. RAMANNA RESIDING AT3D MAIN, VALAGERE HALLI RANGAPPA LAYOUT, BEHIND SHANKAR NAGAR TIPTUR-572202, TUMKUR DISTRICT2 MOHAN PATEL AGED ABOUT44YEARS S/O RAMU.R @ V.R. RAMANNA RESIDING AT3D MAIN VALAGERE HALLI, RANGAPPA LAYOUT BEHIND SHANKAR NAGAR TIPTUR-572202, TUMKUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CLIFTON D. ROZARIO, ADVOCATE AND SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND:1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI-110001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY - 2 - WP No.10103 of 2020 C/W WP No.12483 of 2020 WP No.12537 of 2020 WP No.14110 of 2021 2. STATE O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - WP No.10103 of 2020 C/W WP No.12483 of 2020 WP No.12537 of 2020 WP No.14110 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF JULY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.10103 OF2020(LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.12483 OF2020WRIT PETITION No.12537 OF2020WRIT PETITION No.14110 OF2021IN W.P. NO.10103/2020 BETWEEN:1. SHRI. MANOHAR PATEL.R AGED ABOUT46YEARS S/O RAMU.R @ V.R. RAMANNA RESIDING AT3D MAIN, VALAGERE HALLI RANGAPPA LAYOUT, BEHIND SHANKAR NAGAR TIPTUR-572202, TUMKUR DISTRICT2 MOHAN PATEL AGED ABOUT44YEARS S/O RAMU.R @ V.R. RAMANNA RESIDING AT3D MAIN VALAGERE HALLI, RANGAPPA LAYOUT BEHIND SHANKAR NAGAR TIPTUR-572202, TUMKUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CLIFTON D. ROZARIO, ADVOCATE AND SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND:1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI-110001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY - 2 - WP No.10103 of 2020 C/W WP No.12483 of 2020 WP No.12537 of 2020 WP No.14110 of 2021 2. STATE O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - WP No.10103 of 2020 C/W WP No.12483 of 2020 WP No.12537 of 2020 WP No.14110 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF JULY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.10103 OF2020(LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.12483 OF2020WRIT PETITION No.12537 OF2020WRIT PETITION No.14110 OF2021IN W.P. NO.10103/2020 BETWEEN:1. SHRI. MANOHAR PATEL.R AGED ABOUT46YEARS S/O RAMU.R @ V.R. RAMANNA RESIDING AT3D MAIN, VALAGERE HALLI RANGAPPA LAYOUT, BEHIND SHANKAR NAGAR TIPTUR-572202, TUMKUR DISTRICT2 MOHAN PATEL AGED ABOUT44YEARS S/O RAMU.R @ V.R. RAMANNA RESIDING AT3D MAIN VALAGERE HALLI, RANGAPPA LAYOUT BEHIND SHANKAR NAGAR TIPTUR-572202, TUMKUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CLIFTON D. ROZARIO, ADVOCATE AND SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND:1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI-110001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY - 2 - WP No.10103 of 2020 C/W WP No.12483 of 2020 WP No.12537 of 2020 WP No.14110 of 2021 2. STATE O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant158; AIR1954Mys158; (1957)ILLJ285Kant
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The petitioner has made an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for the issue of a proper direction, order or writ to the respondents declaring that his appointment by respondent 2 to the post of Electrical Supervisor in the Department of Power Engineering of respondent 1 never ceased, that he is still an occupant of the post entitled to hold and function in the same without any obstruction from the respondents, and requiring respondents 2 and 3 to restore and admit him to the post and let him work therein without any let or hindrance. Respondent 1 is the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, respondent 2 the Council of the Indian Institute of Science, respondent 3 the Director and respondent 4 the Registrar of that Institute.2. The facts relevant to this case are practically undisputed and are set out in para 8 of the petition. On 7-5-1953, it appears that the then Director in charge while checking a statement presented by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant293; AIR1969Mys293
ORDER1. The question for decision in C.R.P. 909 of 1965 is whether the respondent (defendant) is an agriculturist's Relief Act.2. The petitioner before this Court was the plaintiff in O. S. 593/63 in the Court of the Munsiff, Chitradurga. The plaintiff brought the suit against defendant (respondent) on two pronotes for Rs. 390 dated 15-7-1957. The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendant was an agriculturist both at the time when the suit pronotes were executed and also at the time the suit was instituted.It may be mentioned that the suit was instituted on 20th September 1963. The plaintiff relied on the extended period of limitation given by S. 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Munsiff held that the defendant was no an agriculturist as per the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the benefit of the extended period of limitation under Section 24 of the said Act and dismissed the suit. This revision petiti...
Tag this Judgment!