Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Letter Dtd: 19.08.2015 issued by the R-3 vide Annexure-C; direct the R-2 and 3 to permit the Petitioner to take admission in the 1st Year of B.A., L.L.B (Five Years) Course. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direction or Order to approve the admission of the Petitioner with the R-2 College, that the petitioner has satisfied the Eligibility Criteria for admission for 5 Years of Law Degree Course. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the E-Mail notice has been sent by the R-1 Dtd: 30.10.2015 produced at Annexure-N as the scheme is Lapsed and Quash the direction issued by the R-2 Dtd: 20.12.2010 produced at Annexure-M and also clarification letter issued Dtd: 06.10.2015 which is produced as Annexure-L. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 2...
Tag this Judgment!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
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking several directions from the Court for proper conduct of elections to the Advocates' Association of Bangalore Notice was ordered to the Association. The Association was represented by a counsel. In fact, on coming to know of the said Writ Petition, Advocates in large number were present in Court at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition and made several submissions for proper conduct of the ejections.2. After hearing the learned members of the Bar, this. Court appointed Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, senior Counsel and Sri N.S. Prasad, Advocate, as returning officers., to take appropriate steps to conduct the elections on 22.03.2009. A Committee to monitor the elections and to resolve any dispute which may arise in the conduct of elections, was constituted by appointing Sri. B.V. Acharya, the former Chairman of the Bar Council of Karnataka and farmer Advocate General, as its Chairman. Directions were issued to finalise the voters list, con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(6)KarLJ194
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Government Advocate for the appellants and the learned Counsels for the respondent, at a considerable length and carefully perused the relevant case papers, including the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, in the light of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder and also the precedents.2. This is a writ appeal filed by the appellant-State and its authorities against an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Thirumala Distilleries, Tumkur v. State of Karnataka and Ors., : ILR2002KAR2889 , whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-distillery has been allowed and the orders made by the appellants 2 and 3 at Annexures-J and G to the writ petition, have been set aside or quashed and an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- deposited, if any by the respondent-distillery with the appellant 3 in compliance with the interim order dated 7-6-2000 has been ordered to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)148; ILR1998KAR2885; 1998(2)KarLJ716
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is an Advocate of this Court and who being public spirited, always raised voice against the acts of insult or acts having tendency to insult or disgrace the things of National importance, such as National Flag, National Anthem, or the Institutions like Court i.e., judiciary or Judicature established under the Constitution, is seeking direction of the Court for deletion of such things which have tendency to degrade or disgrace things of National importance, dignity of the Court or dignity of women or the like and has prayed for issuance of writ or direction in the nature of prohibition or writ of mandamus prohibiting or directing the respondents not to exhibit as well directing them to remove the scenes which have tendency of degrading the status of National Flag and National Anthem or of judicial system or the dignity of woman, which according to the petitioner have been shown in the film Jackie Chan. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1958
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davangere, brought to the notice of this Court through the District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, the two letters written to him by Shivadeva accused dated 10-10-1975/18-11-1975 Ex. p-1 and 30-11-19715/2-12-1975 Ex. P-2 containing language which according to the learned Magistrate was highly contemptuous of this Court. These letters are alleged to have been written by the accused after the Magistrate aforesaid had dismissed his complaint under Sections 447, 500 and 323, I.P.C. against one Narappa and Rajashekarappa after obtaining the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Davangere Town Police Station to whom the complaint had been referred for enquiry and report under Section 156 (3), Criminal P. C.2. This Court, on perusal of the aforesaid letters written by Shivadeva accused, issued notice to him to show cause. In pursuance of the show cause notice, he appeared in Court and when questioned as to whether the two letters in q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR4476; 2000(4)KarLJ86
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. These two revisions under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) are directed against the order of eviction granted by the Trial Judge under the provisions of Section 21(1)(h) of the Act.2. Certain undisputed facts in these two cases are as follows:Respondent-landlord is a reputed doctor settled in USA and has acquired citizenship there. He is a son of a doctor. His father is no more. The suit premises which is situated in the prime locality of Bangalore City at Sadashivanagar, consists of ground and first floors which is essentially a residential premises. The landlord's father died about ten years back bequeathing the property in his favour. Both the ground and first floors were allotted to the tenants by the Rent Controller and the petitioners-tenants came to be in possession of these two premises as tenants and they are residing therefor about a decade. The petitioner in HRRP No. 980 of 1998 is a businessman while the other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR221
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. This petition is presented by the Advocates Association, Bangalore, which is a premier association of Advocates in Karnataka State, ( which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Association'). The petitioner Association has sought for a direction to the respondents to demolish the exising old building of the Association and to construct in its place a new building at the premises of the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore.M2. Few facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition as set out by the parties may be briefly stated as hereunder:The case of the Association is that it is a unique association in the State of Karnataka and out of about 22,000 Advocates in the State, about 8,000 Advocates who are practicing in various Courts including the High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore, are its members and the present premises in occupation of the Association which is located at City Civil Courts Complex is a very old building constructed more than 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant329; ILR2001KAR2506; 2001(4)KarLJ444
ORDER1. These writ petitions raise a common question as to the power of the State Government to fix or regulate the collection of tuition and other fees from the pupil studying in respective schools. The Constitution of India has given unto ourselves Article 45 declaring that the State shall endeavour that education up to the age of 14 years shall be free. Apparently, in order to make this constitutional guarantee more meaningful, the Government of Karnataka after enacting the Education Act, 1983, had constituted a committee to recommend further steps to achieve the object. It is seen from W.P. No. 18061 of 2000 and connected cases the extracts from the report of that committee headed by Hon'ble Justice Chinnappa Reddy has been copiously referred to. In order to appreciate the gravity of the situation, a reference to the part of the report herein will be useful. The following part of the report has been extracted in the writ petition:'In regard to compulsory primary education, there is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1734
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this batch of petitions, since common questions of law have been raised, these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 22740/96, 26483 to 26484/96, 27734 to 27741/96, 28843/96, 2960/97, 15299/97 and 16470/96 have called in question the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(bb)(iii) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/ 96 has called in question the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7) of the Act. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/96 at the hearing of these petitions, limited his argument only to the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(bb)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation given to the said provision. 3. The petitioners, in these petitions, are the tenants in respect of either residential or non-residential premises taken on lease bythem from...
Tag this Judgment!