Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-29-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Kant56; ILR1989KAR1430
ORDER1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since the facts are common in all these petitions and certain common questions of law arise for consideration in all these petitions.2. En W.P. Nos. 14386 to 14390 of 1987. she petitioners are the builders, owners of high rise residential apartment buildings and it is common ground that they had put up these high rise buildings in accordance with the plans sanctioned by the Corporation of City of Bangalore which is the 1st respondent herein. They are aggrieved by the notices issued by the Corporation which are produced as Annexure-A to E in these petitions. By those notices, the Commissioner for Corporation who is the 1st respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) had called upon the petitioners to bring down the height of the building to 35' 55' with ground floor plus two, four upper floors respectively within 30 days from the date of receipt of these notices failing which they were warned that suitable act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-31-1989
Reported in : AIR1990AP20
ORDER1. In the elections held to the Legislative Assembly of the Stale of Andhra Pradesh in early 1983, and again in late 1984, the Telugu Desam Party, headed by Sri N. T. Rama Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent'), captured a majority of seats. Sri N. T. Rama Rao became the Chief Minister. The term of the Legislative Assembly is coming to an end in or about Dec., 1989/March, 1990.2. In Jan., 1987, the respondent made a statement that he is going to act in a Telugu movie, styled 'Brahmarishi Viswamithra' as 'Viswamithra'. Immediately thereupon, W.P. No. 310/1987 was filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus 'restraining the respondent herein from enacting in any films including'Brahmarishi Viswamithra'while in office as the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as he is a 'public servant' of State of Andhra Pradesh .......'. The petitioner is a practising advocate at Narasarao-pet. He is an elector and also the Organizing Secretary of District Youth Congress, Guntur D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-08-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR39
ORDERK.A. Swami, J 1. RELIEFS: .These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking various reliefs. The reliefs sought for in W.P.Nos. 8546 to 8548/88 also cover the reliefs sought for in W.P.No. 15377/88. Therefore, the reliefs sought for in W.P.No. 15377/88 are not specifically stated. Further in a public interest petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the reliefs can be moulded according to the findings arrived at. The objection as to absence of a specific prayer in a public interest petition as in a private interest litigation does nor assume any importance. The reliefs sought for in W.P.Nos. 8546 to 8548/88 as follows:'Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue:a) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action for forfeiture of the land for contravention of Section 79 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act;b) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to acquire the land for the purpose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-17-1989
Reported in : 1990ACJ668; AIR1989AP235
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit for da mages in a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs against the State of Andhra Pradesh has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kurnool.2. Plaintiffs I to 5 are the sons, and 6th plaintiff is the wife of late Challa Chinnappa Reddy. The deceased and the 1st plaintiff were accused in Crime No. 18/1977 of Owk Police Station in Banganapalle Taluk of Kurnool District. They were arrested on 25-4-1977 and remanded to judicial custody on 264-1977. They were lodged in Cell No. 7 of Sub-Jail of Koilakuntla. On the night intervening 5th and 6th May 1977, at about 3-30 a.m., some miscreants gained entry into the Sub-Jail, hurled bombs into Cell No. 7, and killed the deceased. The 1st plaintiff escaped with injuries. The said incident took place, according to the plaintiffs, on account of malfeasance and misfeasance of the defendant-State and its subordinate officials in guarding the sub-jail premises. The deceased was a rich and influen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1081; 1989(1)KarLJ409
ORDERBopanna, J.1. Issues in this election petition were settled on 30-11-1988 and the case was posted for trial on 23-1-1989. Parties had filed their respective lists of documents and witnesses as directed by this Court and the case was taken up for trial on 23-1-1988. On that day Respondent-2 filed an application under Section 151, Order 14 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (In short the Act). In that application he had made the following prayer:a) that issue numbers 1 and 2 be tried as preliminaryminary issues. A finding thereon in favour of Respondent No. 2 will dispose of Issues 3 to 7, 14 and 16, and obviate recording of voluminous evidence;b) that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 83 of the Act the petition should be dismissed in limine and as that question is a pure question of law which could be decid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1989
Reported in : AIR1989Kant226; ILR1989KAR457
Rama, J.1. Seminal questions of National importance arise for consideration in these ten writ petitions presented by the Linguistic Minorities in the State, questioning the constitutional validity of the order of the State Government which makes the study of Kannada, the official language of the State, in addition to mother-tongue by children belonging to linguistic minority groups, from the first year of the Primary Schools, compulsory, and prescribing Kannada as the sole First Language in the Secondary Schools. They are:-Whether the Order of the State Government which prescribes that Kannada which is the regional and the official language of the State - - (i) a compulsory subject for study for children belonging to linguistic minority groups in Primary Schools, in addition to the mother-tongue of the children concerned from the first year of primary school, and (ii) the sole first language in the secondary schools, is violative of Arts. 14, 29, 30 and 350A of the Constitution of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1989
..... always held is subject to the duty of fair representation. "the undoubted broad authority of the union as exclusive bargaining agent in the negotiation and administration of a collective bargaining contract is accompanied by a responsibility of equal scope, the responsibility and duty of fair representation." humphrey v. moore, 375 ..... nlra's grant of exclusive representation status to unions, such that the claims "aris[e] under a[n] act of congress regulating commerce" within the meaning of 28 u.s.c. 1337(a), the pertinent jurisdictional provision. moreover, a fair representation ..... for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of this chapter. the provisions of section 412 of this title shall be applicable in the enforcement of this section." [ footnote 2/7 ] contemporaneous sources are replete with examples of discipline imposed informally and ..... 7 ] in the hiring hall environment, permitting courts to hear fair representation claims against the union would create the danger of bifurcated proceedings before a court and the nlrb. the absence of a 301 claim, according to respondent, requires that we hold tha ..... n.l.r.b. 417, 421 (1980), enf. denied, 712 f.2d 225 (ca6 1983) (per curiam). the board has held that "any departure from established exclusive hiring hall procedures which ..... 143, moving picture and projection machine operators union, 649 f.2d 610, 612 (ca8 1981). the nlrb, however, has construed 8(b)(1)(a) and 8(b)(2) more expansively to bar the use of unfair .....
Tag this Judgment!