Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... entire plaint averments contending that while admitting the plaintiff to the school the parents of the plaintiff has given information and as per the said information the caste of plaintiff was mentioned as hindu lingayat navi and there is no mistake of the school authorities and also contended that there is no cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit and the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time, etc and ..... and it is submitted that, the petitioner had submitted a amended copy of the plaint, in this plaint also the typical mistake that ddpi, chikkodi, the same is also not intentional or deliberate one it is an a unavoidable circumstances. 19. ..... the substance of the entire plaint is that the petitioner and other family members belong to hindu- navi caste and by mistake, the school authorities have wrongly mentioned the caste as hindu-lingayat-navi ; that is sought to be corrected by filing the original suit. ..... it is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under section 152 of the code but also inherent power in general. ..... the relatives of plaintiff also belong to hindu navi caste and community and also the family members of the plaintiff are identified and recognised by the public at large that they belong to hindu navi caste and they are performing the customs of hindu navi caste and community.4. ..... , nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court.19. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... entire plaint averments contending that while admitting the plaintiff to the school the parents of the plaintiff has given information and as per the said information the caste of plaintiff was mentioned as hindu lingayat navi and there is no mistake of the school authorities and also contended that there is no cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit and the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time, etc and ..... filing the suit, mandatory notice under section 80 of code of civil procedure was also issued to the said persons and admittedly, the suit was decreed as prayed for, declaring that the plaintiff belongs to hindu-navi and not hindu-lingayat navi and directed the defendants to correct the school records of the plaintiff by showing the caste as hindu ..... and it is submitted that, the petitioner had submitted a amended copy of the plaint, in this plaint also the typical mistake that ddpi, chikkodi, the same is also not intentional or deliberate one it is an a unavoidable circumstances. ? 19. ..... it is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under section 152 of the code but also inherent power in general. ..... the substance of the entire plaint is that the petitioner and other family members belong to hindu-navicaste and by mistake, the school authorities have wrongly mentioned the caste as hindu-lingayat-navi'; that is sought to be corrected by filing the original suit. ..... , nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court. 19. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... institutions receiving grant from the state will be the same as those applicable for corresponding category of employees in any state institutions, same cannot be whittled down by the amending act that too, retrospectively and particularly when the provisions of existing act has been interpreted by the courts to the benefit of the petitioners and as such, taking away the benefit accrued by such orders of the court through legislation ..... the extent of grant-in-aid sanctioned to the posts by nullifying the judgment rendered by the high court of andhra pradesh in w.p.no.8697/2005 dated 07.11.2005 and similar exercise having been undertaken by the state of karnataka through act no.7 of 2014, the constitutional validity be upheld since there is no challenge to the competence of the legislature to enact the ..... 1957-58 to 1965-66 came to be challenged before the high court of madras by comorin match industries private limited contending that it had sold the safety matches manufactured by it, in the course of inter-state trade and commerce for which sales tax was charged under the central sales tax ..... reported in (1996)4 scc281has held that the statute being what it was, the judicial interpretation of the statute could not be held to be erroneous by legislative imprimatur, but if the statute itself was amended retrospectively so that the very basis of the judgment disappear, then it could not be said that the judgment was still in force and will have to be given effect even though the legislature .....
Tag this Judgment!