Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-2016
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE7H DAY OF JANUARY2016PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR H.R.R.P.No.31/2011 BETWEEN: Sri C.S.Sheshagiri S/o Late C.Subraya Sastry Aged about 71 years, R/at No.27/2, Ramakrishna Street, Seshadripuram, Bangalore - 560 020 ...PETITIONER (By Sri T.V.Vijay Raghavan, Adv.) AND: Smt.Jayalakshmi @ Jayalakshmamma Since deceased by LRs Sri Mohan Chandra S/o Late M.E.Rajagopal Aged about 64 years, No.88, 2nd Floor, Out House, 1st Main Road, 9th Cross, Chamarajpet Bangalore - 560 018 RESPONDENT (By Sri Ramesh Chandra, Adv. for C/R.) - 2 - This H.R.R.P. filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, against the order dated 20.01.2011 passed on I.A.No.III in H.R.C.No.299/2008 on the file of the 18th Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (SCCH- 4), dismissing the I.A.No.III filed under Section 43(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999. made the following: This H.R.R.P. coming on for, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-29-2016
R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. By administrative order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this Special Bench was reconstituted for hearing of above Petition and other connected matters from the Division Benches available at Original / Appellate Side. In pursuance thereof, we have heard Mr. Navroz Seervai, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, Mr. R. S. Apte, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Daraius Khambata, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.7 and 8 and Mr. Toor, learned Counsel for BEST at length. At the request and by consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Petition is instituted by Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short 'Adarsh Society') and one of its members under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondent No.1 - Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short 'MOEF'), respondent No.2 - Mr. Jayram Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-05-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.21002 of 2004 dated 23-07-2009.) A. Selvam, J. 1. Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dated 23-07-2009 passed in W.P.No.21002 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The respondent herein, as petitioner has filed W.P.No.21002 of 2004 on the file of this Court praying to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situate in Site No.86 in S.F.Nos.567, 569 and 570/1A1 at Thudiyalur Revenue Village, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore 641 029 by invoking Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 ('the Act' in short) and consequently, directing the respondents to delete wrong entries made in revenue records and restore its status, wherein the present appellants have been shown as respondents. 3. The material averments made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-22-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. PREFACE:- A) This writ petition is one more in the series of matters where jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked not by rightful owners but builders and developers, to reclaim the vacant lands in excess of ceiling limits, which have already vested in the State. The surplus land holders and owners of these lands very well know that their fate is sealed for they are divested of their right, title and interest in these lands by due process of law. However, they are propped up by builders and developers with ulterior motives to file such petitions by relying on the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Principal Act) in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 29th November, 2007. Though physical possession of these lands is with the State and not challenged by the owners and surplus vacant land holders at the relevant time, now they raise such challenge being financed by builders and dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-10-2016
(Prayers: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the Order dtd:17/19.12.11 passed by the P.O., FTC-II, Bangalore City in S.C.No.539/06 convicting the appellants/accused for the offence p/u/s 120b, 121-a, 121 of IPC and Sec. 5 and 6 of the explosive substances act and Sec.25 and 26 of the Arms Act and the appellants/accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence p/u/s 120b of IPC and the appellants/accused are further sentenced to undergo S.I. for 7 yrs., and shall pay fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo further S.I. for a period of one year for the offence p/u/s 121-a of the IPC and the appellants/accused are further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence p/u/s 121 of IPC and the appellant Nos.2, 3, 5/accused Nos.2, 4 and 6 are sentenced to undergo S.I. for 7 yrs., and shall pay fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo further S.I. of one year for the offence p/u/s 5 of the Explosive Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Oct-06-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2027 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2207 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2515 of 2016 M/s Shah Brothers --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC20272016] Anil Khirwal --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC22072016] Padam Kumar Jain --- --- --- Petitioner [In WPC25152016] Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines and Steel 2. The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioners: M/s Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Krishanu Ray, Advocate (in WPC20272016) M/s Indrajit Sinha, Krishanu Ray, Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocates (in WPC22072016 & WPC25152016) For the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Oct-06-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2027 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2207 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2515 of 2016 M/s Shah Brothers --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC20272016] Anil Khirwal --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC22072016] Padam Kumar Jain --- --- --- Petitioner [In WPC25152016] Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines and Steel 2. The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioners: M/s Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Krishanu Ray, Advocate (in WPC20272016) M/s Indrajit Sinha, Krishanu Ray, Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocates (in WPC22072016 & WPC25152016) For the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Oct-06-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2027 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2207 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2515 of 2016 M/s Shah Brothers --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC20272016] Anil Khirwal --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC22072016] Padam Kumar Jain --- --- --- Petitioner [In WPC25152016] Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines and Steel 2. The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioners: M/s Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Krishanu Ray, Advocate (in WPC20272016) M/s Indrajit Sinha, Krishanu Ray, Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocates (in WPC22072016 & WPC25152016) For the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-29-2016
Common Order: 1. Both the writ petitions are filed by same petitioners against the same respondents. While in WP.No.36838 of 2014, the summons issued by the first respondent to the second petitioner is questioned, in WP.No.31143 of 2015, the further steps initiated by the first respondent pursuant to the summons served on the second petitioner are questioned. 2. The material averments in the affidavit of the petitioners in nutshell are as follows: WP.No.36838 of 2014: (a) The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and the second petitioner is its Managing Director. Petitioners state that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge sheet before the Special Court for CBI Cases, City Criminal Court, Nampally against various accused and petitioners 1 and 2 are shown as accused 3 to 12 respectively. The Special Court has already taken cognizance of the offences against all the accused on 13.05.2013. Petitioners deny the charge sheet framed against them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-10-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiated against the schedule lands belonging to the petitioners have been lapsed by virtue of the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the award dated 30.4.2010 in respect of Sy.No.70/7 measuring 14 guntas of Bomanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is concerned vide Annexure-D and etc; This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the preliminary notification dated 7.11.2002 [Annexure-H] issued under Section 17[1] of the BDA Act and the final notification dated 9.9.2003 [Annexure-J] issued in so far as the schedule property is concerned under Section 19[1] of the BDA Ac...
Tag this Judgment!