Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR1667; 1990(1)KarLJ107
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 33A of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are only prospective and not retrospective and that the terms of office held by the members of the authorities mentioned in Section 20 of the Act prior to the coming into force of Karnataka Act No .23/1986 shall not be taken into account for the purpose of Section 33-A of the Act.2. The petitioner is a Lecturer in J.S.S. College, Mysore. He was elected to the Academic Council of the Mysore University for the period 1983-86. Thereafter, he came to be elected for the second term for the period 1986-89. His term of office as a Member of the Academic Council of the Mysore University comes to an end by the 31st of December 1989. Therefore, the said office has to be filled up for the period commencing on the end of De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR432
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these petitions except in Writ Petition No. 6515 of 1984 and W.P. 10332/86, the petitioners apart from seeking issue of a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto directing the 3rd respondent-Sri V. Surya Prakash, State Librarian, to vacate the office of the State Librarian and also to quash the orders of transfers made by him transferring the petitioners.2. In Writ Petition 10332/86, the petitioner has only sought for quashing the order of transfer passed by Sri V. Suryaprakash transferring the petitioner. As far as W.P. 6515/84 is concerned, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :'(i) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent not to appoint the 2nd Respondent as State Librarian (Pay Scale 1320-2250).(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of State Librarian (Pay Scale Rs. 1320-2250) in accordance with the Karnataka State Libr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2384
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 17-9-1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhadravathi in O.S.No. 69 of 1982. At the stage of admission, Respondents 1 to 4 and 6 have put in appearance through a Counsel. Respondents 5 and 7 are neither served nor represented. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of at this stage as the modification of the decree agreed to by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 (respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal) does not affect the Appellants and Respondents 5, 6 and 7, On the contrary, it will benefit Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (plaintiffs Nos. 5 and 6), therefore, we have dispensed with the service of notice on Respondents 5 and 7 and heard the appeal.2. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of 22/26th share in the suit properties mentioned in suit schedules 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', and mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of the delive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR2531; 2003(4)KarLJ453; (2003)IIILLJ502Kant
ORDER1. A learned Single Judge of this Court has made this Reference vide Order dated 7.12.2000, passed in W.P.No. 36625/2000 to a larger Bench, for reconsideration of the law as enunciated in the Division Bench judgment reported in W.P.No. 14792 - 804/1998 c/w 14095/1998 dated 9.3.2000 ( Veerashaiva Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others) on the ground that amendment brought to Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act ousts the jurisdiction of Labour Court by conferring the jurisdiction on the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. This Reference was placed before us on 9.4.2003 as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 1.4.2003.2. Brief facts leading to the Order of Reference, as alleged, are:The Karnataka Sugar Workers Federation (R) represented by its President has filed W.P.No. 36625/2000 challenging the validity of amendments made to the Co-operative Societies Act by the Karnataka Co-operative 2nd Amendment Act, 1997 as published in the Kar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2809; 1987(3)KarLJ643
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. On 6-3-1987, the interim order passed in these petitions was vacated. However, Learned Counsel for the petitioners could not be heard as he was not present, but before the order was signed, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted to the Court that he may be heard. Accordingly, on a direction of the Court, these petitions came to be posted 'for being spoken to'. It was at that stage, both sides agreed that the petitions may be heard for final disposal. Hence, these petitions were taken up for final hearing. In view of this, the order dated 6-3-1987 is recalled. The petitions are heard on merits for final disposal.2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs :'Wherefore the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Respondent-2's, Notification No. LAQ(2) SR 33/82-83. dated 15-2-1983 pub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3355; 2004(6)KarLJ275
N. Kumar, J.1. The Bench consisting of my esteemed learned brothers Justice Tirath Singh Thakur and Justice K. Sreedhar Rao, upon hearing the Regular First Appeal, RFA No. 446/1993, and having differed in their opinion on a point of law, have stated the point of law on which they differ, and in terms of Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal is placed before me for hearing on the points of law so stated only, by an order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. Though my learned Brothers in the course of their judgment have set out the facts of the case, in order to appreciate the case in a proper perspective and to give my opinion on the point of law stated, it is necessary to advert to the pleadings of the parties in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks to in the original suit.3. The plaintiffs contend that the propositus Sri Balaram Kuduchakar died in the year 1930 leaving behind four sons, out of whom two sons expired in their y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR221
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. This petition is presented by the Advocates Association, Bangalore, which is a premier association of Advocates in Karnataka State, ( which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Association'). The petitioner Association has sought for a direction to the respondents to demolish the exising old building of the Association and to construct in its place a new building at the premises of the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore.M2. Few facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition as set out by the parties may be briefly stated as hereunder:The case of the Association is that it is a unique association in the State of Karnataka and out of about 22,000 Advocates in the State, about 8,000 Advocates who are practicing in various Courts including the High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore, are its members and the present premises in occupation of the Association which is located at City Civil Courts Complex is a very old building constructed more than 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]111STC322(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. In Writ Petition No. 26445 of 1997, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of sub-section (6) of section 17 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as amended by Act No. 5 of 1996 and Act No. 7 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In Writ Petition Nos. 30363 and 30364 of 1997, the petitioners, in addition to the challenge made to the constitutional validity of sub-section (6) of section 17 of the Act, have prayed for quashing of the orders of assessments made by the assessing authorities in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 12(3) read with section 17(6) of the Act, for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Copies of the said assessment orders dated April 14, 1997 and April 11, 1997 have been produced as annexures A and B respectively. 2. Since common questions of law are raised in these petitions, these petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Before referring to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR3538
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. This appeal by the State Government is directed against the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Coorg, in O.S No.9 of 1971 dated 14-4-1975 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 2,21,451/-. Though the suit claim is for a very heavy amount, the facts of this case are quite simple and do not admit of much controversy.2. The parties are referred here by the position assigned to them in the trial Court.3. The 1st defendant, i.e., the State of Mysore, under the Notification dated 11-4-1969 published in Mysore Gazette Extraordinary of even date called for tenders for leasing the right of retail vending of liquors in Kodagu District. The terms and conditions of retail vending are found in the Gazette Notification Ex. P-9. The relevant Clause for the purpose of this case is Clause 18(b)(1). In pursuance of the said Notification, the plaintiff participated in the auction sale conducted by the 2nd defendant/Deputy Commissioner Of Kodagu who is also the District Excise Off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(4)KarLJ183
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. In these intra-Court appeals, writ petitioners are the appellants before us. They had filed the writ petitions with the prayer to restrain the respondent-Commissioner of the Bangalore City Corporation and its other officers from entering on the part of the conservancy lane on which they are alleged to have put up certain constructions and demolish the same. The learned Single Judge after referring to the relevant statutory provisions; had negatived the prayer (K. Vasudeva and Ors. v. The Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Ors., 2001(6) Kar. L.J. 360).2. The appellants are exerting their right to remain on the conservancy lane in question on the basis of a registered lease deed dated 16th February, 1954 which was entered into between their father and the Corporation (Annexure-B to the writ petition) whereunder the lessee had undertaken to plant or grow trees in the above lane with a very clear stipulation that they will not put up any construction of any nature....
Tag this Judgment!