Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1995Kant290; 1996(6)KarLJ464
ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the two petitioners, who are Advocates of this Court, as public interest litigation seeking the issuance of (a) writ of prohibition or order or direction against respondents 3 to 4 directing them not to exhibit Kannada film 'Kona Eedaite' (which means in English that He Buffalo gives birthto a calf), on 2-2-1995, or on any subsequent dates in any film Cinema, theatre and Celluloid for general public either in the State of Karnataka, or anywhere within the territory of India, as well as, for directing respondents 1 and 2 to take back/withdraw the certificate/permission for exhibition of the aforesaid Kannada Film and for costs.While, moving the writ petition, the petitioners also prayed for an ex parte interim order directing respondents not to exhibit the film on 2-2-1995 or on subsequent dates pending decision or disposal of this writ petition by the Court after witnessing and examining finding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1991Kant317; ILR1991KAR1057; 1991(2)KarLJ172
ORDERVenkatachala, J. 1. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shivaraj Patil, J., who, sitting in a Division Bench, heard the appeals on 3-8-1990, gave expression to their view of the important question involved in the appeals and the need for its decision by a Special Bench, by making the following order :--'In view of the important question involved whether the delimitation order under S. 5(5) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, and the amendments thereon, could be questioned in a writ petition, the consequences of which will be far-reaching, the matter is directed to be heard by a Special Bench.'A Special Bench consisting of three of us (including Shivaraj Patil, J.) having been constituted pursuant to the said order, the appeals were heard by us and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Karnataka State Legislature, with the object of establishing and constituting Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1958Kant148; AIR1958Mys148; ILR1958KAR62; (1958)36MysLJ131
ORDER1. The revision petitioner before me is the defendant in Regular Suit No. 197 of 1953 on the file of the First Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Belgaum. The plaintiff is running an industrial concern in Belgaum. The defendant is a firm supplying electricity to the town of Belgaum. The suit was for injunction (1) restraining the defendant from making the minimum charges (2) recovery of Rs. 362-5-0 and (3) restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electric connections to the plaintiff's concern. The plaintiff contends that the standing charges imposed on him by the defendant are illegal and ultra vires. The defendant-petitioner apart from controverting the plaint allegations, applied to the trial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to refer the disputes to arbitration. He insisted that under Clause 16 of the VIth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 which shall be hereinafter called 'the Act' read with Section 76 of the said Act the dispute in question is required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1982KAR622; (1982)ILLJ268Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. Three important questions arise for consideration in these four writ petitions. They are : 1. Whether, (i) The Bharat Farth Movers Limited; (ii) The Hindustan Machine Tools Limited; (iii) The Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited, which are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1/1956) and are Government companies as defined in S. 617 of the said Act, fall within the meaning of the word 'State' as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution of India 2. Whether (i) Rule 17.2 of The Bharat Earth Movers Limited Service Rules; (ii) Rule 20.1 of the Hindustan machine Tools (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules; (iii) Rule 2.21 of the Karnataka Agro-Industries Corporation Limited (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules; and (iv) Regulation 25(2) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Rules' O providing for termination of service of its permanent employees, by a simple notice, at any time,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant220; AIR1961Mys220
ORDER1. These fifty Writ petitions have been heard together because they raise common questions in regard to the principles on which and the manner in which admissions were made into Professional and Technical Colleges in the State for the academic year 1980-61. The petitioners complain that both the principles and the Procedure followed infringed or abridge their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 29 of the Constitution, and claim that they would otherwise have secured admission. 2. Twenty out of these petitions, viz., W. P. Nos 782, 788, 794, 805, 806, 844, 845, 867, 870, 880, 881, 886, 961, 964, 983, 1018, 1039, 1041, 1077 and 1149 of 1960, relate to Medical Colleges and the remaining thirty, viz., 818, 819, 820, 841, 883, 910, 951, 954, 955, 962, 965, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1040, 1042, 1058, 1069, 1101, 1105, 1113, 1173 and 1295 of 1960 relate to Engineering Colleges in the State. 3. The State Government maintains three Medical Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR1551; 2006(2)KarLJ412
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. The land in dispute in this case is Sy. No, 47 of the Panthar Palya, KengHobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 24 acres 37 guntas which is morefully described in the schedule to the writ petition, and hereinafter referred to as 'schedule land'. Petitioner is the son of Patel Chikkahanumaiah and grandson of Hanumanthappa. It is the case of the petitioner that his grandfather was the tenant of the scheduled land, having acquired the same under two lease deeds dated 30-6-1927 and 9-5-1936. Hanumanthappa was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land during his lifetime and after his death Patel Chikkahanumaiah continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. On coming into force of Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'), Patel Chikkahanumaiah applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore for grant of occupancy rights of the schedule land. The Special Deputy Commis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1990]67CompCas453a(Kar); 1989(3)KarLJ473; (1990)ILLJ227Kant
ORDER1. The question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) is : Whether a 'Firm of Chartered Accountants' is an 'Establishment' within the meaning of the expression in Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (Act No. 8 of 1962). (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961). 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as below. Phillipos & Company is a registered Partnership Firm of Chartered Accountants, having its office at No. 12, Davis Road, Bangalore-560084, Post Box No. 8401. The Partnership Firm of Chartered Accountants (hereinafter referred to as the Firm) is also registered under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949). Wg. Cdr. A. Phillipos (petitioner No. 2), Ashok Kumar (petitioner No. 3), B. Satyanaryan (petitioner No. 4) and Joseph Phillipos (petitioner No. 5) - the Chartered Accountants - are the partners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1990]67CompCas154(Kar); ILR1989KAR3135
1. The question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (the code for short) is : Whether a 'firm of chartered accountants' is an 'establishment' within the meaning of the expression in section 2(i) of the karnataka shops and commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (Act No. 8 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961). 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as below: Philipos and company is a registered partnership firm of chartered accountants, having its office at No. 12, Davis Road, Bangalore-560 084, post Box No. 8401. This partnership firm of chartered accountants (herein after referred to as the firm) is also registered under the chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ACt of 1949). Wg. Cdr. A Philipos (petitioner NO. 2). Ashok Kumar (petitioner No. 3), B. Satyanaryan (petitioner No. 4) and joseph Philipos (petitioner No. 5), chartered accountants, are the partners of the firm....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1994]79CompCas868(Kar); ILR1992KAR3329; 1992(4)KarLJ490
K.A. Swami, J.1. This petition is filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the following reliefs : '1. declare that the transfer of 25 equity shares held by Sri B. K. P. Rao (fourth respondent) in favour of his wife, Smt. B. K. Anupama Rao (third respondent), is invalid and illegal and direct that out of the said 25 shares originally held by Sri B. K. P. Rao, 12 shares be transferred to the petitioner; 2. quash the proceedings of the extraordinary general meeting of the members of the company held on November 12, 1987, and annual the resolution passed at the extraordinary general meeting of the company on November 12, 1987, declining to appoint the petitioner as director and direct that the petitioner shall continue as a wholetime director of the company with all such powers as originally conferred upon him and that he is entitled to draw remuneration as such; 3. direct amendment of the articles of association of the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1976Kant94; ILR1976KAR143; 1975(2)KarLJ441
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of an order of the District Judge, Shimoga, in the Probate Proceedings, whereby he permitted a party who had earlier consented to the grant of probate, to contest the same.2. The matter arises in this way: One Lingappa was a leading Advocate in the local Bar in Shimoga City. He died on 26th November, 1972, leaving behind his wife, two sons and three daughters, The sons claimed the entire properties of the deceased on the basis of a will dated 20th November, 1972 said to have been executed by their father in their favor. The sons made a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (shortly called 'the Act') praying for the grant of probate of the said Will. On 11th Sept. 1973, their mother and two sisters filed a written statement admitting the execution of the Will and consenting for the grant of probate as prayed for. But the remaining three sisters had a different story to tell. They filed an objection statement denying the executi...
Tag this Judgment!