Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-24-2003
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4732; 2004(3)KarLJ49
ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. All these petitions give rise to a common question of law, for my consideration. The question is, whether by operation of Section 5 of The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the present Act' for short) the landlords of the premises involved in these petitions are entitled to recover possession of the premises without the need to take recourse to Section 27 of the Act.2. Let me first refer to the background which has given rise to this question. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) provided for inheritability of tenancy by the legal representatives of the original tenant. The inheritance was automatic and there was no end for this inheritance, in that, after the wife or husband of the original tenant, the sons and daughters and after them the grandson and grand-daughters could stake claim because the repealed Act recognized them all as statutory tenants by including in the definition of the term, 'tenant' the surviving spouse or any son ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-26-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ592
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, an octogenarian, aggrieved by the order of eviction suffered by him on 27th September, 1997 preferred the present revision petition and after nearly six years the question whether the landlady would succeed in her endeavour and realise the fruits of this long drawn legal battle waged by her to recover the possession of her property from her never-say-die tenant is to be determined now, in this revision, nearly one and half decades after she first moved the Court below for relief.2. Of that there could be no doubt that this legal battle was fought passionately and bitterly, at times the parties going for each other's jugular veins the tenant taking the lead in this regard by filing an application under Section 340(2) read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. for holding a preliminary inquiry as to the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 193 and 209 of the IPC by the landlord, followed closely by a similar application by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-08-2003
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ87
ORDERA.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.1. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting petitioner's prayer for eviction of the tenant on the grounds available under Clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the petitioner-landlord has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition, briefly stated, are as under:(i) The petitioner filed the eviction petition claiming that the respondent was a tenant under her in respect of the petition property on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and he had failed to pay rent of the said property from 1-2-1984 to 30-9-1985 in spite of several demands and legal notice dated 12-6-1985. She further claimed in the petition that the petition premises is required by her for the bona fide use and occupation of herself and her family members. (ii) The learned Munsiff on a detailed examination of the claim of the petitioner and the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-17-2003
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
Decided on : Feb-17-2003
Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Kar)412; [2003]261ITR15(KAR); [2003]261ITR15(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Since, in all these petitions common questions have been raised and arose for consideration, all these petitions along with a few other connected petitions were taken up for hearing together.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7405 of 2002 and Writ Petitions Nos. 8891 to 9021 of 2002 is the BHEL Employees' Association which is a registered trade union under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trade Unions Act'). It is claimed by the petitioner in the said petitions that the petitioner-association represents the interest of the workmen numbering around 1,100 employed in the Electronics Division of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the BHEL') ; and these petitions have been filed by the association on behalf of the members who are residing in the BHEL quarters and also in the colony belonging to the BHEL.3. The first petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7205 of 2002 is Bharat Earth Movers Officers' Guil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-14-2003
Reported in : ILR2002KAR5182; 2003(2)KarLJ490
1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 2-7-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chandramma and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2003(2) Kar. L.J. 600Some other appeals have also been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the said writ petition. These appeals involve common questions of law and fact. As agreed, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. The controversy in the present appeals is that the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA') had prepared various schemes for the purpose of development and formation of several layouts, namely, Nagadevanahalli Layout, Valagerahally Layout, Gnana Bharathi Layout and Sri Venkateshwara Layout and issued notifications to acquire the said lands. For the purpose of convenience, the necessary facts in W.A. Nos. 4681 and 4682 of 2002, filed against the main order passed in W.P. Nos. 1179 and 1180 of 2000 are narrated. It is alleged that the first appellant is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-06-2003
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4678
Nayak, J.1. What arises for decision in these Writ Appeals and Writ Petition is the validity of the proposal/action of the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') in erecting high tension line over the lands of the appellants for supply of additional power-500 KVA to M/s.Widia (India) Limited (for short 'the Widia'). The above action of the Board was assailed by the writ petitioners on the grounds that the same was contrary to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Supply Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, Section 76M of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Planning Act') and Condition 1(a) of the Work Order dated 27.05.1994. A learned Single Judge of this Court without finding any merit in the above contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners, by his common order dated the 5th day of April 1999, has dismissed the Writ Petitions.2. The events leading to filing of the Writ Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-25-2003
Reported in : [2003]131TAXMAN717(Kar)
ORDERSri A.S. Mani, an expert in Marketing in the Petroleum sector is knocking the doors of this court in the light of an adverse endorsement issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 2-6-1999.2. The admitted facts are as under :M/s. Oil tanking, a Foreign Company entered into an agreement with the petitioner in the matter of providing consultancy services. There are various clauses seen in the agreement. An application was made to the government in the matter of approval of the agreement. The agreement was approved subject to a condition. The conditional approval reads as under :'The approval for exemption is limited proportionally to the stay and work abroad with the total amount received by applicant.'3. On receipt of the same, the petitioner sought for reconsideration. In the absence of any positive response, the petitioner is knocking the doors of this court for justice.4. Respondents have entered appearance. They oppose the prayers.5. Writ Petition Nos. 23605-606/2001 are filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-31-2003
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2893; 2004(4)KarLJ612; 2005(30)PTC417(Karn)
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1.The defendant in O.S. No. 11413/1998, on the file of XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore has filed this appeal challenging the order on I.A.I. dated 16/08/2001.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their respective ranks before the Trial Court.3. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its partners, agents, servants, employees, assigns and representatives from in any way using and advertising, directly or indirectly the word MAC as a trade mark or part of its trading style or any other name similar thereto in relation to its business/ goods, so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants business and goods as and for the business and goods of the plaintiffs; They have sought for similar injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark/name 'McDonald's' and 'BIG MAC' or from using any other name similar thereto as a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-25-2003
Reported in : (2003)184CTR(Kar)511
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Sri A.S. Mani, an expert in marketing in the petroleum sector is knocking the doors of this Court in the light of an adverse endorsement issued by the Ministry of Finance dt. 2nd June, 1999.2. The admitted facts are as under:M/s Oiltanking, a foreign company entered into an agreement with the petitioner in the matter of providing consultancy services. There are various clauses seen in the agreement. An application was made to the Government in the matter of approval of the agreement. The agreement was approved subject to a condition. The conditional approval reads as under: 'The approval for exemption is limited proportionally to the stay and work abroad with the total amount received by applicant.' 3. On receipt of the same, the petitioner sought for reconsideration. In the absence of any positive response, the petitioner is knocking the doors of this Court for justice.4. Respondents have entered appearance. They oppose the prayers.5. Writ Petition Nos. 23605 ...
Tag this Judgment!