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 : ILR1995KAR193; 1995(1)KarLJ632
ORDERSadashiva, J 1. This Petition was listed for orders, With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, the same was heard on merits and disposed of by this Order.2. The petitioners have presented this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Directives dated 5.8.1994 issued by the first respondent in No. F.5(6)/94-P1ant (B) produced at Annexure-B and for a further Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to conduct all its future auctions of the coffee without reference to the Directives issued by respondent-1 at Annexure-B.3. That, in view of the sharp rise in auction prices of coffee and the resultant upward trend in retail prices, the first respondent in pursuance of Section 20 of the Coffee Act, 1942 (for short 'the Act'), directed the second respondent to implement the Directives mentioned in Annexure-B to arrest steep rise in retail prices of coffee in domestic market. The Directives issued vide Annexure-B reads as follows :'1) That the Coffe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1995Kant243; ILR1994KAR2909; 1995(1)KarLJ452
ORDERRamakrishna, J. 1. The appellant had filed W.P. No. 44138 of 1993 seeking to quash the communication No. MCI/34 (i)/93-Mad. 25059 dated 15-12-1993 issued by respondent-2 herein and to direct respon-dent-1, the Director, Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, Bangalore, to reserve one seat out of the three seats notified for selection of candidates to D.M., Cardiology course commencing from 1 -1-1994 for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to admit him to the said course as against the reserved seat. He has also sought for an interim relief based on the above reliefs. That writ petition having been dismissed by the learned singleJudge by his order dated 1-3-1994, the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking to set it aside oh more than one ground taken in the appeal. The prayer in the writ appeal is as follows:--'Wherefore this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for records in writ petition No. 44138 of 1993 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and set aside the order da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1994Kant350; ILR1994KAR2353; 1994(4)KarLJ319
ORDER1. This petition is listed for admission with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, the petition is heard on merits and disposed of by this order.2. The defendant in O.S. No. 297/87 on the file of the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, is the petitioner herein. He has called in question the judgment and decree dated 9-12-1993 passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, in O.S. No. 292/ 87 instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act').3. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit against the petitioner for possession of the premises bearing No. 1739 (New No. 93), Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore, and for damage for use and occupation of the same. It was contended by the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the suit property and they were in possession of the said property till they were dispossessed by the defendant without their consent, otherwise than in due course of law. It is the cast of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1994Kant256; ILR1994KAR687
ORDER1. The petition was listed in the preliminary hearing Group 'B'. By consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard on merits and disposed offinally.This petition is presented by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 31-5-1993 passed by the first respondent in Order No. HUD 109 CUP 92 (Annexure-S) on the ground that the same is illegal and without the authority of law having been made in violation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), besides being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner has further sought for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take action under Section 20(2) of the Act by taking over the entire land in Sy. Nos. 97/2 and 98 of Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore on the ground that the land in question is in excess of the ceiling limit and for a further direction to 6th respondent to retain the entire land for the company for its expansion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR125; 1994(1)KarLJ590
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. A disappointed tenderer is the petitioner. In September 1992, the first respondent invited sealed tenders in two parts, for supply and erection of Public Address System, required at the Thermal Power Station, from those 'who have successfully designed, manufactured, erected and commissioned and similar or higher capacity of Public Address System (Distributed Type) which have been in successful operation for a period of around two years in atleast two different thermal power stations reckoned as on the date of opening of Part-I'. It was stated that Part-1 shall comprise of technical commercial terms and conditions along with the earnest money deposit of Rs. 25,000/- and Part-II shall comprise of prices only. Last date for submitting tenderers was 6.11.1992 upto 1.00 noon and Part-l was to be opened on the same day at 3.00 p.m. in the presence of the tenders who choose to be present; Part-II was to be opened at a date to be intimated later.2. Petitioner, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR2720; 1994(1)KarLJ77
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Writ Petition was heard for final disposal.Petitioner is the proprietor of a Rice Mill having the benefit of electrical supply for running the mill. On 16.7.1993, the authorities of the Electricity Board inspected the premises of the Rice Mill and opined that the petitioner has been consuming electricity after tampering with the meter and thus, petitioner is guilty of theft of electricity. Thereafter petitioner was served with a Bill dated 23.7.1993 for Rs. 1,43,419/- being the alleged 'back billing charges'. This Bill was served on 24.7.1993. On 29th July, the present Writ Petition was filed challenging the said demand. Petitioner also seeks restoration of the electricity supply to his mill.2. Petitioner contended that the impugned action of the respondents violated the principles of Natural Justice and that the demand under the impugned Bill was exhorbitant and arbitrary and that the petitioner has no other effective alternative remedy against the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1993(2)KarLJ475; (1994)ILLJ49Kant
1. All these writ appeals are preferred against the Order dated January 22, 1993 passed by the learned Singe Judge in W.P. Nos. 25471 and 25472 of 1990 and other writ petitions. Except Writ Appeal Nos. 681 and 682 of 1993, which are preferred by the respondents in the writ petitions, all other writ appeals are preferred by the petitioners in the writ petitions. Hence all the writ appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for a declaration that Para 26(1)(a) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') as amended by the Notification No. S-35012/90-SS.II dated October 19, 1990 is ultra vires being beyond the scope of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners challenged the aforesaid Notification dated October 19, 1990 on another ground viz., that it was not placed befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1714
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J.1. All these Writ Appeals are preferred against the Order dated 22,1.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25471 and 25472 of 1990 and other Writ Petitions. Except Writ Appeal Nos.681 and 682 of 1993, which are preferred by the respondents in the Writ Petitions all other Writ Appeals are preferred by the petitioners in the Writ petitions. Hence all the Writ Appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. In the Writ Petitions, the petitioners sought for a declaration that Para 26(1)(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') as amended by the Notification No. S-35012/90-SS.II dated 19.10.1990 is ultra vires being beyond the scope of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioners challenged the aforesaid Notification dated 19.10.1990 on another ground viz., that it was not placed before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)310; 1993CriLJ2331; ILR1993KAR1430; 1992(2)KarLJ190
ORDER1. Since the question of law and facts involved in both these petitions are common, both the petitions are clubbed and a common order is passed. 2. These two petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary, in C.C. No. 227 of 1985 on I. As. Nos. 13 and 14 dated 26-5-1989 wherein he rejected I.A. No. 13 filed by the D.S.P., C.B.I., seeking for permission to make further investigation and to stay the proceedings and I.A. No. 14 filed by the D.S.P., C.B.I., requesting the Court to drop the proceedings and to discharge the accused and to hand over the documents produced in the case to him for further investigation. 2A. For the sake of convenience, in these petitions the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. Before the trial Court the accused were (1), G. Lakshman, (2) G. Raghunath, (3) G. Jagannath, (4) R. N. Laxman, (5) Srinivasulu, (6) Yadunandan Prasad Dangwal and (7) Hardeep Singh and the complainant was the State of Karn...
Tag this Judgment!