Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(1)KarLJ106; ILR2007(4)Kar3956; 2007(4)KCCRSN245; 2007(6)AIRKarR33(DB)
S.R. Bannurmath and A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ.1. The appellant, had filed the writ petition seeking the following prayers: To,(a) declare Regulation 43 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (General Conduct of Proceedings) Regulations 2000, ('Regulations' for short), as ultra vires and unenforceable;(b) direct the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission not to give effect to or apply Regulation 43 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (General Conduct of Proceedings) Regulation 2000;(c) to quash the letter of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 15.12.2000, rejecting Appeal No. 32/2000 and for directing the 'Commission' to entertain the said Appeal and decide the same on merits.2. The writ petition having been dismissed by the learned Single judge, this writ appeal has been filed, to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition.3. We have heard Sri S. Naganand, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(4)AIRKarR623;
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. These two writ petitioners are directed against the award dated 8.9.2006 in I.D.Nos. 130 to 166/2005 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore.2. Petitioner in W.P.No. 4162/2007 is by the Management, party No. 2(a) before the Labour Court. Petitioner in W.P.No. 4163/2007 is another Management party No. 2(b) before the Labour Court. Petitioners will be referred to as BPL and Sanyo BPL for convenience.3. BPL is the company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was engaged in manufacturing of colour T.V. It had made an application before the Kerala High Court under Sections 351 to 354 of the Companies Act, inter alia seeking arrangement for restructuring of the company in application No. 84/2004. The Company Court allowed the said application by permitting the BPL to restructure its arrangement and in this regard the Kerala High Court by order dated 23.8.2005 approved a Scheme. In terms of the Scheme, BPL made negotiations wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR216; 2009(3)KCCRSN167(D.B).
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In these Writ Petitions, 5 students have approached this Court asserting common facts and raising common questions of law. Hence, all these petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. In fact, these Writ Petitions were listed before the learned Single Judge of this Court and an Interim Order directing provisional admission of the students for the various Post Graduate courses in Dental Sciences has been passed on 31.05.2007. Challenging the said Interim Order, the Karnataka Religious & Linguistic Minority Professional Colleges Association and as also the Principal, Oxford Dental College and Research Centre, Bangalore filed two separate Writ Appeals, in W.A. No. 1032/2007 and 1046/2007. In the course of hearing of the said Appeals, it was felt that the questions raised for consideration in the Writ Appeals virtually result in considering the questions raised in the Writ Petitions. Hence, for the purpose of effective and final adjudicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(3)KarLJ583; 2008(2)AIRKarR124; AIR2008NOC1063
ORDERD.V. Sylendra Kumar, J.1. These two revision petitions are by the tenant nd the landlord of a commercial premises bearing No 5/13, 16th Cross, Lakkasandra, Bangalore-30, measuring east-west 12 feet and north-south 12 feet, which premises was the subject matter of HRC No 424 of 2002, on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore,2. The eviction petition by the landlord titled as one under Section 27(2)(a) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 [for short, the Act[, having failed in terms of the order dated 13-4-2007, though technically under the impugned order it was sought that the eviction petition under Section 27(2)(a) is allowed, the eviction petitioner not having achieved his objective of getting the premises, has while preferred HRRP No 193 of 2007 seeking for eviction of the tenant from the premises based on the Section 27(2)(o) ground, the trial court having allowed the petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act also, though it was not a head under which th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(6)KarLJ161
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 9553/207 is a Software company and has the benefit of credit facilities with the Corporation Bank for several years and has the enhanced credit limit of Rs. 44.05 crore, which is called Package Credit Limit cum PCFC, overdraft facility, rupee advance against export and various types of term loans. The petitioner had offered title deeds of immovable property as collateral security for repayment of the loan amounts without reducing the terms of such transaction into the form of a document except handing over a letter to that effect, along with executing other loan documents, by paying a stamp duty of 0.5% on the loan amount. The petitioner had again approached the Bank for a loan of Rs. 70 crore in addition to the existing credit limit as on 1.6.2007. This having bean sanctioned by the Bank on certain terms and conditions as evidenced at Annexure-'A' to the writ petition and in furtheran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(6)KarLJ23; 2008(3)KCCRSN181; 2008(3)AIRKarR122; AIR2008NOC1535(DB)
1. All the four writ appeals involve similar questions of fact and law, hence are heard together for common disposal.In W.A. Nos. 1718/2007 & 1720/2007Sri S.M. Babu has filed an application on behalf of one Sri M. Anwarji2. These appeals pertain to the Municipal elections of Chikkaballapur City Municipality. The Election Commissioner is R-4 in both the appeals who issued notification dated 4.08.2007 for conducting elections to the local bodies including Chikkaballapur Municipality. The Government by notification dated 30.07.2007 issued notification regarding the roster pattern to be followed in the election to the various Municipalities as per Annexure-C. The calendar of events dated 04.08.2007 was stayed by this court on 7.8.2007. The Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 14334/2007, in view of the undertaking of R-4 that elections would be held before 30.09.2007 stayed the stay order granted by this court in W.P. No. 12391/2007. The calendar of events dated 4.8.2007 virtually had became unwork...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR1198; 2007(4)KCCR2129; 2007(2)AIRKarR510; AIR2007NOC510
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent to refix the price of levy sugar delivered by the petitioner factory during the year 1997-98 at Rs. 997.96 per quintal and for the year 1998-99 at Rs. 1,017.58 per quintal and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay an additional price of Rs. 25.08 lakhs towards the levy sugar delivered for the year 1997-98 and Rs. 53.93 lakhs for the year 1998-99.2. According to the petitioner, it is a sugar manufacturing unit manufacturing sugar by Vaccum Fan Process. It is declared as essential commodity under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Central Government has been issuing orders during every sugar season called the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order fixing price at which the sugar manufacturers are required to sell certain percentage of sug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR3197; 2007(5)KarLJ112; 2007(4)AIRKarR81
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 29.11.2006 in FOC No. 32/2006-07 whereby and whereunder the 1st respondent has imposed certain conditions for release of the vehicle bearing No. KA-53-711 (a tipper) in his favour.2. Petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. It is the case of the petitioner that he is engaged in the business of transportation of waste mud and sand on contract basis. On the request of the customers, he transports the mud and sand from one place to another place. One Narayan Raju, a contractor hired the vehicle of the petitioner for transportation of mud and sand from the surroundings of I.T.C. Company to Palace ground, Bangalore. On 20.07.2006 at about 12.10 P.M. while the vehicle of the petitioner was transporting the mud and sand, certain officials of the Forest Department seized the vehicle alleging that the vehicle was involved in commission of certain offences. P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(3)KarLJ16; 2007(6)AIRKarR562; AIR2008NOC270; 2008AIHC712(Kar)
Subhash B. Adi, J.1. Though this matter was listed for admission, since it involves the only question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, as the appeal is against the rejection of plaint, under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the matter was taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.2. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs 1 and 6 questioning the order dated 1st March, 2007 passed in O.S. No. 1758 of 2003 in I. No. V.3. The Trial Court has allowed the I.A. No. V filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC and rejected the plaint holding that, the matter can be inquired by the Registrar under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') and not by the Civil Court.4. The case of the plaintiffs is that, 6th plaintiff-Society was registered in the year 1978 in the name and style as, International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 to 10 are the members of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR3216; 2008(1)KarLJ482; 2007(2)KCCR1349; 2007(5)AIRKarR283; AIR2007NOC2236
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. Both the appeals RFANos. 286/2001 and 386/2001 have been dismissed by judgment dated 10-7-2006. This petition has been filed to review the said judgment on the ground that the said decision has been given in ignorance of binding law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen : [1986]161ITR370(SC) .2. The appeals arose out of a common judgment dated 18-1-2001 passed by the learned XXIV Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-6), Bangalore, in O.S. Nos. 3470/1988 and 3491/1988. The suit O.S. No. 3470/1988 was for a declaration that the suit property i.e., 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 84/3 A of Cholanayakanahally village, Bangalore North Taluk, was a joint family property in which the plaintiffs had right as co-parceners; and the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 for the sale of different sites therein were not binding on their shares. The plaintiffs prayed also for consequent permanent injunctio...
Tag this Judgment!