Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1431; 1987(3)KarLJ350
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In W.P. No. 11562/87, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :'1) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to declare and strike done the expression 'before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter in this Rule referred to as the Amendment Rules)' in Rule 105(1) as null and void for want of previous publication.2) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent to apply Rule 105 of the Rules without reference to the expression 'before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1978' on the ground that Rule 105(1) has referred to non-existent Rules.'a) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to declare and strike down the expression 'before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter in this rule referred as th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR532
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases between one and the same contesting parties in relation to several agricultural lands are closely inter-connected, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. We, therefore propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. During the period from 1942 to 1945 one Hariyachar of Coimbator City of Tamilnadu State, a Hindu by religion and a Chartered Accountant by profession, with a passion for agriculture and horticulture, bought a number of agricultural lands bearing different survey numbers and extents situated at Varuna, Janthigalli and Dandikere villages of Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, in all measuring about 120 acres from their previous owners for valuable consideration. All those lands except Survey No. 208 of Janthigalli village measuring about 10 acres, are contiguous to each other and form one compact block of 110 acres and we will hereafter refer to the area of 110 acres and Sy. No. 208...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR4984; 2005(5)KarLJ568
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The respondent was a driver working at Bailhongal Depot of Belgaum Division, NWKRTC. On 14-2-1995 while on duty enroute Belgaum-Bailhongal he caused a fatal accident at about 13.30 hours near Hirebagewadi. He was served with an articles of charge accusing him of rash and negligent driving which resulted in an accident in which three persons lost life and 20 passengers sustained injuries. The respondent gave a reply denying the charges. Not being satisfied with the said reply an enquiry was initiated. Petitioner examined witnesses in support of their case and also produced eight documents which were marked. Respondent contended that the reply given by him to the charge-sheet has to be taken as his evidence. As there was an obligation cast upon the Enquiry Officer to put questions to the delinquent in the event of his not examining himself, he was questioned and his statement was recorded in which he stated the accident arose on account of breaking of front right side...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR2091; 1994(5)KarLJ306
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. These are the Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioners have claimed issuance of a declaration to the effect that the producers/agriculturists are entitled to process or decorticate their produce before effecting sale of their produce and that the respondent No. 1 has no manner any authority to prevent or obstruct the entry or business or bringing in of the produce within the premises of the petitioners for the purpose of processing of the paddy into rice. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of further direction to respondents that they should not interfere with the processing activity carried on by the petitioners, by preventing any producer or agriculturist from bringing their produce for the said purpose within the premises of the petitioners.2. The petitioners' case in the nutshell is that the petitioner in W.P.14386/88 is carrying on the processing unit which process the notified agricultural produce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1048; 2001(6)KarLJ64
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner/management has challenged in this writ petition the order of the Labour Court, Mysore, in I.D. No. 50 of 1993 holding that the respondent/claimant is entitled to retire from service with effect from 24-1-1995 and award of consequential benefits on the basis of the said date of retirement. 2. Brief facts of the case are as hereunder: The petitioner is a company manufacturing sugar. The respondent was appointed as mason in the year 1951. While joining the company he did not furnish his date of birth. Subsequently, he was working in the company as a driver. As no documentary proof of date of birth was given by him to indicate his age, the petitioner constituted Medical Board for examining the respondent and similarly placed employees who have not given the date of birth or age at the time of entering into service. The respondent was called upon to appear before the Medical Board. The respondent appeared before the Medical Board. He was examined and the Med...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR1972; 1996(41)KarLJ615
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is to declare Section 18AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 (in short, 'the Act') as unconstitutional being ultra vires the legislative powers of the State Legislature and consequently to quash the order dated 18.11.1995 passed by the second respondent (Annexure-A) holding that the amount of Rs. 1,50,737.00 which had been collected by the petitioner from the customers in excess of its tax liability under the Act, stood forfeited to the Government by operation of Sub-section (3) of the impugned section, apparently for being refunded to the customers in the manner provided under Sub-section (4) thereof.2. The relevant facts lie in a short compass. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, is engaged in the production and sale of Tarpaulins. During the accounting year ending on 2.11.1986 the petitioner had collected Rs. 1,99,796/- as tax on the sale of Tarpaulins. Subsequent to filing of the returns for the said period,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1526; 1991(1)KarLJ506
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In all those petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the Notification dated 18-7-1981 bearing No. LAQ/I/CR.74/80-81 published in the Gazette dated 13-8-1981 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Karnataka Act No. 17/61 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also the Notification bearing No. RD 339 AQD 84 dated 27-3-1984 published in the Official Gazette dated 19-4-1984 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. The lands in question are acquired for formation of New Market Yard II Stage between Amargof and Bhairidevarkoppa by the Hubli Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The petitioners claim to be the persons interested in the land in question which are as follows: 1. Block 257/1 of Bhairidevarkoppa which is described by the petitioner in W.P.9597/1986 as Plot No. 1; Block 257/1 A;2. Block 257/1 which is described by the petitioner in W.P.9598...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ685
ORDER1. The question involved herein is short but of far reaching effect. It pertains to the jurisdiction of the Tribunals constituted under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act').2. The above question has arisen in the context of the order dated 26-3-1997 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent Land Tribunal. This order has been passed by the Tribunal in the guise of its jurisdiction under Section 48A of the Act. This order pertains to an agricultural land measuring 2 acres 1 gunta of Sy. No. 12/2 of Gattahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.3. It is not in dispute that Smt. Sarvamangala and her mother late Chennabasamma were owners of the land in question as on 1-3-1974. According to the petitioners, this land was sold by the owners jointly to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 26-2-1988 (Annexure-A) on a representation that it was not a tenanted land. It is a matter of rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4798; I(2005)DMC593
ORDERS.B. Majage, J. 1. A short but an important point which arises for consideration, is, 'whether an accused is entitled to bail, if investigation is not completed and charge-sheet is not filed within 60 days from the date of his arrest when he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 306 or 304-B of IPC?'2. Facts which gave rise to the said point, are :The petitioner-accused No. 1 was produced before the learned Magistrate on 5-4-2004 in Crime No. 38/2004 of Shivajinagar Police Station at Bangalore, alleging that he and another accused (accused No. 2) committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and consequently, he was remanded to judicial custody. That custody was extended from time to time. However, charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days from the date of his remand. So, on 25-6-2004, the petitioner/ accused No. 1 filed an application under Section 167 of Cr. P.C. requesting for his release on bail on that ground. Thereafter, on hear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant302; ILR2001KAR3502
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.1. These Writ Petitions filed by R. V. Dental College and the students, who have passed out from the same raise common questions for consideration and shall stand disposed of by this order.2. In W.P. No. 8496/2000 filed by the College, a declaration to the effect that the permission granted by the Central Government under Section 10A of the Dentists Act should be treated as one under Section 10C of the Act has been prayed for. WPs. No. 31649/2000, 32720 & 21/2000, 2019-21/ 2001 and 2418/2001 have been filed by students of the petitioner-College, who have taken admission to different Post Graduate Courses in Dental Sciences, which admissions the University has declined to approve on the ground that the dental qualification acquired by them not being a recognised qualification, the petitioners are not entitled to pursue any such Course. In WPs No. 38437-39/2000, students who have passed out from the petitioner-College have assailed the denial of permission to ...
Tag this Judgment!