Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-31-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1573
..... expropriated. it is the very negation of the effectuating the public purpose. payment of market value in lieu of acquired property is not sine qua non for acquisition. acquisition and payment of amount are part of the scheme and they cannot be dissected. however, fixation of the amount or specification of the principles and the ..... aforesaid writ petitions, stayed further proceedings vide order dated 15.9.1989, initiated pursuant to the aforesaid notification and declaration. thereafter, an ordinance by name, 'bangalore palace acquisition and transfer ordinance, 1992 (hereinafter called 'the ordinance') was promulgated, which was, however, not assented to by the president.7. after the arguments of the petitioners ..... the- act. it is not an act which deals with any inter-state trade of commerce. even assuming for the sake of argument that carriage of passengers from one state to the other in one sense a part of the inter-state trade and commerce, the impugned act is not one which seeks to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-08-1997
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ572
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Constitutional validity of the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1996, hereinafter called the 'Act', has been challenged in this public interest litigation on the grounds that the impugned legislation is unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Act is alleged to have been passed with an object to render ineffective all binding judicial pronouncements between the parties which is not only unwarranted, but also unconstitutional. The impugned legislation is intended to authorise the judicially determined illegal constructions and thus affect the supremacy of Rule of Law. The Act is stated to have the effect of undoing the undertakings given by the parties to this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The impugned legislation is contended to have the effect of setting aside the adjudication of the disputes betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-29-1997
Reported in : I(2000)ACC80
..... as amended by hague protocol, 1955. prior to coming into force of the warsaw convention there, were no uniform rules of law governing the carriage of passengers or cargo in' international air transport and the liability of the carriers is governed by general law of carriage. different legal systems approached particular situations in different ..... time bearing in mind that value of the rupee. therefore, we cannot say that the authorities have adopted any irrational classification between domestic air passengers and international air passengers and in law no absolute uniformity or equality can be brought about.8. we shall next take up the contention based on article 21. it ..... is contended, that life has the same value whether domestic or international passenger. but this argument will not hold water, because the liabilities arising under the provisions are arrived at after good-deal of deliberations and consideration limit has .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-04-1997
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD(Cri)264; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)273; [1999]96CompCas205(Kar); ILR1998KAR333; 1998(2)KarLJ1
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. For resolving the judicial dissent expressed by two Hon'ble judges of this court, the matter has been referred to us for resolving the controversy by,an authoritative pronouncement. The conflicting views are found in the judgments of justice A. B. Murgod delivered in D. Puttaswamy v. Ramahrishna (Criminal Revision Petition No. 146 of 1995, decided on April 3, 1995), and of justice B. N. Mallikarjuna in G. Ekantappa v. State of Karnataka : ILR1997KAR1014 . The controversy relates to the interpretation of the provisions of sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The point for consideration is to determine the period of limitation prescribed under section 142 for filing the complaint for an offence under section 138 of the said Act.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to have a reference to the provisions of the aforesaid two sections. Section 138 prescribe...
Tag this Judgment!