Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1892; 2004(3)KarLJ310
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners are the registered Co-operative Housing Societies under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short, hereinafter called as 'KSC Act' and 'KCS Rules' respectively). They are aggrieved of the amendment to Section 38 by inserting proviso to the KCS Act by Act No. 6 of 2001. They have filed these petitions seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to strike down Section 5 of the Karnataka Act No. 6 of 2001, by inserting the proviso to Section 38 of the KCS Act contending that the same is unconstitutional and further sought for such other directions or direction of this Court that it may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of case.2. Certain necessary and relevant facts and the legal contentions urged by the petitioners are adverted to in this judgment for the purpose of considering and answering the points that would arise in these petitions by this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(7)KarLJ456
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner-Education Trust has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19-6-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. LND(S) CR 223.97-98 at Annexure-G urging various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is that 57 acres of land in Sy. No. 225 of Somanahalli was granted permanently and 33 acres of land in the said survey number was leased in its favour for a period of 10 years by the State Government vide Government Order No. RD 153 LBG 62, dated 3-5-1962 for the purpose of development of agriculture along with the Education Activity. Pursuant to the said grant, it has constructed various buildings for the purpose of setting up of Engineering and Diploma Colleges and High Schools. On an earlier occasion, petitioner had filed W.P. No. 26259 of 1991 when under the guise of 'Ashraya Scheme' some people tried to enter the property of the petitioner on the ground that sites have been allotted to them by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant412; ILR2001KAR3729; 2001(6)KarLJ413
ORDERThe Court 1. This revision by the respondents in the eviction petition in H.R.C. No. 838 of 1999 pending on the file of the Rent Court i.e., Court of Small Causes, Bangalore; is directed against its order dated 5-8-2000, passed rejecting their I.A. No. VII which was filed under Sub-clause (i)(b) of Section 20(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the 'Act' for short), praying to refer the case to Lok Adalat for settlement. 2. Respondent Mrs. C. Gulnaz Jabeen, herein is the petitioner in the said H.R.C. No. 838 of 1999. She is hereinafter referred as the landlady. The petitioners herein, who were respondents therein, are referred to as the tenants herein below. 3. The said H.R.C. No. 838 of 1999 was instituted by landlady against tenants for their eviction from the petition premises on the ground under clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Rent Control Act' for short). 4. The relevant facts of the dispute leading to this revision m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2215; 1989(2)KarLJ172
Hiremath, J. 1. The respondent D.P. Sharma is the owner of a building named 'Sunitha Bhavan' on Tippu Sultan Palace Road, at Bangalore. On 18-11-1982, he leased it out to the appellant Smt. D. Shakuntala for running a hotel-restaurant under a lease deed on a monthly rent, of Rs. 4,500/- for a period of 5 years. The appellant appears to have added some amenities like kitchen on the first-floor and a hotel called 'Hotel Kamadenu' was being run in the said premises by a partnership firm which appears to have later come into existence between the said D. Shakuntala and one A.M. Ahuja. It appears, in 1988 there was no smooth sailing for this hotel. There was labour, unrest and the hotel was being run under loss. The partnership even thought of closing it down. It appears, the employees of the hotel were against the closing down of the establishment and the partnership was not happy with them. A suit for injunction in O.S.No. 572/88 came to be filed before the City Civil Court against the em...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(HRRP filed U/S 46(1) of K.R.Act, against the order dated: 31.5.2010 passed in HRC.No.95/2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, court of small causes, Bangalore, acting under Sec. 27(2)(o) of K.R.Act, ordering the respondent therein to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of petition schedule premises infavour of the petitioner therein with in 3 months from the date of this order, failing which, the petitioner therein is at liberty to seek delivery of possession.) This revision is against the order of eviction dated 31.5.2010 in H.R.C.No.95/2006 on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The factual matrix surfacing from the material on record is: a) Smt.Ayesha Mohiddin, the respondent herein, sought eviction of the petitioner invoking the provisions of clauses (a), (e) and (r) of Section 27(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity), on the premise she is the absolute owner o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR3862; 2008(1)KarLJ564
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 7007/96 dated 20.1.01.2. The Plaintiff/Trust represented by its trustees filed a suit for possession of the schedule premises and for mesne profits alleging that plaintiff is the owner of the non-residential premises bearing Nos. 232 and 233 situate at A.S. Char street, Chickpet; the defendant is in occupation of the premises on a rental of Rs. 1,000/- per month and the tenancy commences on first of every month; the schedule property was measuring about 40' East to West and 10.5' North to South; consequent upon the demolition of the portion of the premises by the Bangalore City Corporation for widening the road, the measurement came to be reduced to 28' East to West and 10.5 North to South; stating that building is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction, plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing legal notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3555
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree by the District Judge in RA 326/1989 dated 28.2.2000 in setting aside the judgment and decree of the 1 Addl. Civil Judge, Belgaum in OS 105/1983 in so far as rejecting the relief of specific performance of the contract.2. Suit OS 105/1983 was filed by plaintiff/respondent before the Civil Judge, Belgaum for specific performance of contract against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., property in CTS 1438/1 measuring 91 x 14 sq.mtrs situate at Belgaum and also for a direction to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff accepting Rs. 17,000/- and put the plaintiff in possession of the property and in the alternative, to pass a decree for refund of earnest money of Rs. 12,000/- with interest and to award compensation.3. Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 are the owners of the suit property and defendant 4 is the general power of attorney holder for defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1954Kant152; AIR1954Mys152
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The above two appeals are by two brothers Khan Saheb Abdul Ghani and Khan Saheb Abdul Shacoor against a common order dated 2-12-1952 passed by the Revenue Commissioner and Custodian of Evacuee Property in Mysore in Evacuee Property Case No. 12/51-52. The two writ petitions are by the same parties and are made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therein they have prayed that the same order of the Custodian may be quashed by a suitable writ.2. This case has had a chequered history to which it is necessary briefly to refer. Shortly afterthe partition between what is now known as the territory of India and Pakistan, the then Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore being satisfied that circumstances existed which rendered it necessary to take immediate action to provide for the administration of evacuee property in Mysore and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Government of Mysore Act of 1940. enacted Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant171; AIR1970Mys171
Chandrashekhar, J. 1. These three petitions are similar and they raise common questions of law. They relate to the disputes arising out of termination of services of individual workmen by their respective employers who are the petitioners herein.2. In these petitions, the petitioners have asked for striking down Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They have also impugned the conciliation proceedings pending before the Labour & Conciliation Officer, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Conciliation Officer) in respect of such disputes.3. Respondent 4 in each of these petitions whose services were terminated, preferred an appeal under Section 39 of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Shops & Establishments Act), before the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), who is the Appellant Authority under the said Act After Section 2-A was insert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order of Annx-K dt: 26.05.2012 of the R1 to 4 appointing the R6 as the administrator of the petitioner mutt.) These two writ petitions are directed against the orders / notifications, both dated 26.5.2012, appointing an administrator for Sri. Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt (for short `the Mutt) and constituting a Committee to guide him. The petitioners are also seeking implementation of the endorsement dated 15.10.2004 issued by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Office, representing the Government, stating that the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short `the new Act') would not apply to the Mutt. The first writ petition (W.P. No.17370/2012) is filed by Mathadhipathi of the Mutt, whereas the second writ petition (W.P. No.17391/2012) is filed by Mr. Sosale N. Prakash, duly appointed by the Mathadhipathi, as an...
Tag this Judgment!