Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant5; ILR1989KAR2425
ORDERPrem Chand Jain, C.J. 1. Sri S. R.Bommai and others have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and Constitutional validity of the Presidential proclamation dated 21-4-1989 (Annexure L).2. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case (except the allegations of mala fides made against respondent 3 the Governor, which were not pressed), may be noticed :-Sri S. R. Bommai, the first petitioner, was functioning as the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, and the other three petitioners were members in his Council of Ministers on the date of the impugned proclamation. Before the dissolution of the State Assembly, when Janata Party had formed the Government, the party wise strength of members in the Assembly was as follows: (a) Janatha 139 (b) Congress 66 (c) C.P.M. 2 (d) C.P.I. 4 (e) B.J.P. 2 (f) Independents 8 (g) M.E.S. 3 (h) Nominated 1 __________ Total 225 __________It is averred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1701; 1989(2)KarLJ548
Ad-interim ex parte injunction granted to plaintiff preventing interference with performance of duties and functions as Chara Charajangama Pattadhikari and Uttaradhikari to the office of Matadhipathi of Sri Siddaganga Mutt, being vacated after hearing both sides; in Appeal: Held:(i) Grant of ad-interim injunction has to course through the following slots: (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; (iii) irreparable injury to - the plaintiff, and (iv) lastly, all injunctions- being absolutely discretionary in nature whether there was any overriding consideration that supported the refusal of the injunction by the Court-below. (ii) The existence of a prima facie casein the matter of granting injunction is reallythe harbinger or the all clear sign to go aheadin investigating other aspects of the questiongoverning the grant or refusal of injunction.If there was no prima facie case at all or thecase put forward was so weak and tainted havingvery little prospect of being accepted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1408
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. The petitioner, who is an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited ('SAIL' for short), has sought the following reliefs:(1) the benefit of placement in the higher scale under the service linked promotion scheme with effect from 2-1-1982 instead of 2-7-1982;(2) adjustment of the personal pay of Rs. 286-57 given to the petitioner in lieu of Bonus by fixing the pay at Rs. 2,130+6 (Personal Pay) instead of Rs. 1,890/- in the scale of Rs. 1650-80-2210;(3) for retention in the channel of promotion in the parent department and for promotion in accordance with the seniority in that channel;(4) for promotion of the petitioner and placement above respondents-3 and 4 in the parent channel of promotion of the petitioner and for full monetary benefit with retrospective effect;(5) for other consequential benefits.2. The material facts may be stated as follows:The petitioner joined SAIL as a graduate apprentice in 1960. On completion of training, he was promoted as a J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR53
Balakrishna, J 1. 'But as system of case-law develops, the sordid controversies litigants are the stuff out of which great and shining truths will ultimately be shaped. The accidental and the transitory will yield the essential and permanent'. Benjamin CardozoThis Writ Petitioner has a chequrred career, in as much as on two prior occasions, he had entered the portals of this Court in quest for justice, the cases being, W.P.No. 24491/1982 and W.P.No. 2843/1976. On both the occasions, the Court had allowed the Writ Petitions remitting the cases back for enquiry with a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for the fair hearing of his objections to the acquisition of what was left out of his original holding devoted to agriculture.2. What is material for deciding the fate of this case is whether the petitioner himself would be rendered a landless destitute if the acquisition of land is upheld. The sad part of the story of this forlorn agriculturist is that he has already been relieved o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR829; 1988(1)KarLJ370
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Constitutional validity of Section 30A(1A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short) and the order appointing a Special Officer to the Malaprabha Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Saundatti (referred as 'the Society' hereinafter) are challenged in these two Writ Petitions, referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge. Writ Petitions are filed by 9 of the Directors of the Society in all.2. The Society is stated to be a 'Major Class' Agricultural Produce Co-operative Society, with a vast area of operation. One of its objects is to purchase cotton from grower members and others. Its authorised share capital is Rs. 4 crores and fifty lakhs. The Board of Directors consist of 17 Directors elected by 'A' Class members. Directors nominated by the State Government, of whom one is its Managing Director and one Director is the nominee of a Financing Agency.3. The Society/Mill is being assisted under NCDC-III Project under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR278; [1988]68STC366(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The petitioner, a public limited company and a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the Act'), has challenged the order of seizure made by the respondent under section 28(3) of the Act. 2. The respondent, an officer of the Commercial Tax Department attached to its Intelligence Wing at Bangalore, as stated in the order which is impugned in this writ petition, on information that the petitioner was effecting 'stock transfers' of goods, namely, silk fabrics to its various show-rooms outside the State of Karnataka, and was thus avoiding payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act (C.S.T. Act), visited the office-cum-mill premises of the petitioner at Bangalore on 13th March 1987. 3. After entering the premises of the petitioner, the respondent called upon the Financial Accountant of M/s. Binny Mills Ltd., the petitioner-company, to make available the relevant books of account and other records relating to transactions described in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR509
ORDERBopanna, J.1. These batch of Writ Petitions raise an important question of law touching the interpretation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Anti-Defection Act). The Karnataka Legislature just on the eve of the elections to the Zilla Parishads and Mandal Panchayats which came to be constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, issued an Ordinance called as 'Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Ordinance, 1986'. The Ordinance was promulgated on 29th December, 1986. By that Ordinance certain disqualifications were imposed on a Councillor or member belonging to any political party from voting or abstaining from voting in any meeting of the Zilla Parishad and Mandal Panchayat, contrary to any direction issued by the political party to whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1988Kant255
1. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order made by the learned Civil Judge in O.S. No. 4029 of 1987 dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs (who are appellants herein and who are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) under the provisions of 0. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 of C.P.C. (in short the Code).2. Interim reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit were to restrain defendants-1, 2 and 3 from re-publishing the Kannada novel written by defendant-1 under the title 'Avasthe' and to restrain defendants4 to 8 from exhibiting and screening the picture based on the aforesaid novel going by the name 'Avasthe'. It is common ground that the book was published earlier in the year 1978 and it has reached the stage of second reprint obviously because the book must have been in good demand by the lovers of Kannada -Literature in this State. Defendant-1 who has written the book is a well-known litterateur and he has got to his credit some other works in Kannada language. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR105
Rama Jois, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the following common question of law arises for consideration :'Whether Section 20 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short) which provides for payment of court fee at the rate of ten per cent ad valorem, computed on the basis of the monetary value of the suit claim without any ceiling and/or a tapering rate of court fee over and above a specified limit, is constitutionally valid?'2. The provisions of the Constitution which are relevant to the above question are : Article 245(1) of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the Legislature of a State to make laws for the whole or any part of the State subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Under Article 246(1) the Parliament has the exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List-1 of the VII Schedule. Under Article 246(3), the Legislature of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR3720
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. This public interest Petition is presented on the allegation that the 5th respondent was attempting to occupy the additional floors of a commercial complex called 'Sangeeta' which are directed to be demolished by an order of this Court as they were built in breach of an undertaking given before this Court by the 5th respondent and without license from the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and in plain contravention of the Comprehensive Development Plan promulgated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, and therefore the 5th respondent should be restrained from occupying that portion of the building.2. In order to appreciate the gravity of the situation, it is necessary to set out the history of the case.3. There are two commercial multistoreyed buildings called 'Rajatha' and 'Sangeetha' which have been constructed by Rajatha Enterprises and Vinayaka Investments the 5th respondent, respectively. 'Rajatha' is notorious for having been constructed even ...
Tag this Judgment!