Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR1120; 2009(1)KarLJ538; 2008(4)KCCRSN290
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioners/residents of Kundapur in respect of residential premises, are before this Court, praying to strike down the word 'City' in Part B of the First Schedule (areas to which Chapters I to III and V to VIII apply) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, 'the Rent Act') or in the alternative direct the respondent 1-State of Karnataka to extend the provisions of Chapters V to VIII of the Rent Act to the areas situated within Kundapur Town Municipal Council.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition may be stated as under:The petitioners claim that they are tenants residing within limits of Kundapur Town Municipality. The landlords have filed suits as against the petitioners for their ejectment from the premises on the ground that Chapter VI (Regulation of Eviction) of the Act is not applicable to the premises.The petitioners have common grievance in not applying the Regulation of Eviction (Chapter VI) of the Rent Act to K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2007Kant46(DB); ILR2006KAR4584; 2007(1)KarLJ378; 2007(1)KCCR125; 2007(1)AIRKarR296
1. Though the matter was posted for admission, since the contesting respondents-1 to 5 - plaintiffs had entered caveat and as the question involved in this appeal is only as to whether the termination of tenancy is valid or not, matter was taken up for disposal.2. This is the first defendant's appeal, questioning the judgment and decree dated 7th January 2006 in O.S. No. 8183/1999 on the file of the XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.3. Respondents-1 to 6 are the plaintiffs. As far as respondents-7 to 11 are concerned, they were the defendants-2 to 6 in the trial court and had not contested the suit.4. The suit is one for ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule property and also for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day till the plaintiffs are put in possession.5. Property bearing No. 83, Bazar Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore, measuring 73 feet x 30 feet was owned by one Jayarama Reddy and after his death, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the estate as w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1994Kant141
ORDER1. The petitioners claim to be the lessees of certain premises belonging to third respondent temple. There is no dispute that earlier they were in the- occupation and subsequently when the premises were altered they were given certain shops under the lease. After the, lease period was over they were asked to vacate the premises. Subsequently eviction proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1984, ('the P. P. Act' for short). The order of the Estate Officer was affirmed by the District Judge, Mysore. Hence these writ petitions.2. Mr. Parthasarathy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the P. P. Act is inapplicable because this is an institution not under the management of the Government and only the premises belonging to a Mujrai institution under the management of the Government could be governed by the provisions of the Act, if not the tenants could be evicted only by recourse to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant134; ILR1996KAR3384; 1996(7)KarLJ277
ORDER1. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, the first respondent herein, is a statutory body established under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('the Act' for short). It has established and developed an industrial layout in Chickaballapur known as Chickaballapur Industrial Area.2. The Board allotted Plot No. 1A and 1B in the said layout each measuring 4122 Sq.M. to the two petitioners. The Board issued confirmatory letters of allotment to the petitioners 4/6-2-1993 and 12-1-1993 respectively. The Board delivered possession of the said plots to the petitioners on 6-2-1993and 24-6-1993. The Board entered into lease-cum-sale agreements with the petitioners on 18-8-1993 and 19-8-1993. By clause 2(p)(1) of the said agreements, the petitioners covenanted with the Board to complete the civil construction work and erection of the factory within 12 months, and to commence production within 24 months, from the date of confirmatory letter of allotment. Clause 4 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3803/ 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14161 OF2010 Phatu Rochiram Mulchandani .. Appellant (s) Versus Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board & Ors. .. Respondent (s) WITH C.A.Nos.3804-3807/2014 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.7602-7605/2014 @ SLP(C)...CC14177-14180/2011 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. In this appeal the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Company Appeal which was preferred by the appellant herein against the orders dated 3.9.2009 by the Company Judge of the said court. Respondent No.2 namely M/s. Relectronics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') is ordered to be wound up and liquidation proceedings are pending before the Company Court. Respondent No.1 i.e. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') had allotted an in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE9H DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION Nos.3536-3538/2015 & WRIT PETITION No.3539/2015 (LA-KIADB) S/O. NARAPPA, AGED ABOUT53YEARS, S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS, S/O. MURIGEPPA, AGED ABOUT46YEARS, BETWEEN:1. D. SHARANAPPA2 D. JAYAPPA3 B.M. SHIVAKUMAR4 B. MANJAPPA5 D. BASAVARAJA S/O. NARAPPAM, AGED ABOUT48YEARS, (BY SRI: P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:1. ALL ARE R/AT MAHAJENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 601. S/O. H.B. REVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS ... PETITIONERS STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, #14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, 2 BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.3.4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1986]162ITR180(KAR); [1986]162ITR180(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are interconnected, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. House property bearing CTS No. 1750/1b, Ward III, Bijapur City, measuring 5,109 sq. yards. was originally owned by one Ramrao Bindurao Bagalkotkar (Ramrao) of Bijapur City. On February 20, 1973, Ramrao transferred the said property to one Nandalal Tejmal Kothari (Nandalal) who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11750 of 1985, by an instrument of transfer for an apparent consideration of Rs. 45,000. 3. On an examination of the aforesaid transfer, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Dharwar, the Officer authorized by Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) (the 'Act'), initiated proceedings for acquisition of the same, issued notices (annexure-B) to the transferor, the transferee and all the tenants who were in occupation of different portions of the property. On a considerat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1573
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Despite half a century of independence, overthrow of the foreign rule, abolition of monarchial system of Governments and the sea changes brought about in the socio-economic-political system in the Democratic Republic of India, the successors-in-interest of the former ruler of Mysore State have challenged the jurisdiction of the Legislature in enacting laws with the purpose of depriving them of the privileges allegedly conferred upon the ruler in lieu of the surrender of sovereignty in favour of the Dominion of India. Claim to the properties has been sought to be protected under the umbrella stated to have been provided by the Instrument of Accession and Articles 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State Legislature in enacting the laws with respect to the properties of the former ruler of Mysore has also been challenged on the grounds of inherent lack of jurisdiction under Part XI read with Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. In orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR989
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 2nd February 1990 passed in W.P.No. 12184/1989, The Appellant was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. He is 1n occupation of the premises bearing No. 757 situated at 28th Main, III Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the premises.2. A proceeding under Section 10A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act') was initiated against the appellant-petitioner on the ground that he had occupied the premises in question which was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act without an order of allotment, therefore, his occupation was illegal, hence he was liable to be evicted under Section 10A of the Rent Control Act. The defence of the appellant-petitioner was that the building was not five years old on the date he occupied the premises, therefore, the provisions of Parts II and III of the Rent Control Act were not attracted to the premises.3. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2233; JT1994(1)SC376; 1994(1)SCALE393; (1994)2SCC691; [1994]1SCR579; 1994(2)LC145(SC)
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal and the connected matters are directed against the judgment dated 16th June, 1993 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 5793 of 1993. The Writ Petitioner Durai Raju Naidu moved the aforesaid writ petition before the Madras High Court for a declaration that Rule 39 of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Mineral Concession Rules) as unconstitutional and void. The said Writ Petitioner contended inter alia that he was granted lease with respect to quarry in Survey No. 782/1 in Kulathur village and he had been agitating before the State Government for the renewal of the said lease but he apprehended that the concerned authorities were likely to exercise their prerogative under the said Rule 39 to grant lease to somebody else and in order to safeguard his interest, the Writ Petition was moved by him for the aforesaid declaration. 2. To sustain the challenge to the said Rule 39...
Tag this Judgment!