Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1988Kant312; ILR1988KAR579; 1988(2)KarLJ510
Premchand Jain, C.J.1. The question of law that needs determination by us is in the following terms:'Whether a Division Bench hearing Writ Appeal against an order of single Judge has power to remand the case to the single Judge concerned or not?'. -2. W. P. 5540 of 1975 was rejected by a learned single Judge of this Court on 8th Jan 1976. Writ Appeal 35 of 1976 was preferred against that order which came up for hearing before a Division Bench-of this Court. Without going into the merits of the case, on the points that arose for consideration, the appellate Bench passed the following order'For the reasons stated above, we set aside the order under appeal and remand W.P.5540/75 for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the appellant to impaled the State Government and the owner of the land. Writ Appeal allowed. No costs,Sd/- K. Bhimiah, Judge. Sd/-S.M.Sait,Judge. 3. Earlier in this Court a question had arisen regarding the power-of the Division Bench to remand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1986Kant119
ORDER1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, in which the petitioners, who are the managements as also individuals, who are members of the management of various private engineering colleges in the State, have questioned the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 ('the Act' for short) and orders issued thereunder, the following main question arises forconsideration :Where the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Arts. 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution includes the right to establish and administer the Educational Institutions of their choice? and if.so, whether the Act which prohibits the collection of Capitation Fee for admission to Education Institutions except to the extent permitted by an order made under the proviso to S. 3 of the Act is violative all or any of those Articles and, Arts. 14, 31A and 300A of the Constitution?Facts of the Case :Originally the Writ Petitions were presented quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1573
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Despite half a century of independence, overthrow of the foreign rule, abolition of monarchial system of Governments and the sea changes brought about in the socio-economic-political system in the Democratic Republic of India, the successors-in-interest of the former ruler of Mysore State have challenged the jurisdiction of the Legislature in enacting laws with the purpose of depriving them of the privileges allegedly conferred upon the ruler in lieu of the surrender of sovereignty in favour of the Dominion of India. Claim to the properties has been sought to be protected under the umbrella stated to have been provided by the Instrument of Accession and Articles 294 and 295 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State Legislature in enacting the laws with respect to the properties of the former ruler of Mysore has also been challenged on the grounds of inherent lack of jurisdiction under Part XI read with Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. In orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3068; 1992(3)KarLJ355
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In these Petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of the building licence and the sanctioned plan issued to the fourth respondent by the first respondent - Planning Authority and the second respondent -City Corporation. There is also a prayer for a direction to enforce the Zonal Regulations issued under the Outline Development Plan (ODP) and Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). The further prayer seeks the demolition of the offending structure put up by the fourth respondent. The petitioners also have filed I.As.II and III, I.A.II for the amendment of the Writ Petition and to treat I.A.III as additional statement. Petitioners are permitted to seek this additional prayer and these I.As.II and III are read part of these Writ Petitions. The result is that the petitioners seek the quashing of two Government Orders, one dated 8th November 1984 and another dated 17th October 1985. As per the earlier order dated 8.11.84 Government accorded approval for relaxatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE29H DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.136 OF2022CONNECTED WITH COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.171 OF2022IN COMAP NO.136/2022 BETWEEN: NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.379 ROAD NO.10, JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD-500033 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR A S R MURTHY. APPELLANT (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND SRI. C K NANDA KUMAR SR. COUNSELS FOR SRI. HIDAYATHULLA M H - ADVOCATE) AND:1. . BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR K H ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 . SRI L V SREERANGARAJU NO.537, JESHTA 3RD MAIN HOSAKEREHALLI CROSS BANASHANKARI3D STAGE BENGALURU-560085. 2 3 . SRI R RAJAMANI FLAT NO.3, RAMPRIYA AE-172 11TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR CHENNAI-600040. 4 . SRI T D MANAMOHAN NO.10, KAVERY THARALABALU ENCLAVE NEAR YELAHANKA OLD TOWN TRAFFIC POLICE S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE29H DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.136 OF2022CONNECTED WITH COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.171 OF2022IN COMAP NO.136/2022 BETWEEN: NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.379 ROAD NO.10, JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD-500033 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR A S R MURTHY. APPELLANT (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA AND SRI. C K NANDA KUMAR SR. COUNSELS FOR SRI. HIDAYATHULLA M H - ADVOCATE) AND:1. . BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR K H ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 . SRI L V SREERANGARAJU NO.537, JESHTA 3RD MAIN HOSAKEREHALLI CROSS BANASHANKARI3D STAGE BENGALURU-560085. 2 3 . SRI R RAJAMANI FLAT NO.3, RAMPRIYA AE-172 11TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR CHENNAI-600040. 4 . SRI T D MANAMOHAN NO.10, KAVERY THARALABALU ENCLAVE NEAR YELAHANKA OLD TOWN TRAFFIC POLICE S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)
(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Bangalore District, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.7801/2003 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, praying to the pass a judgment and decree against the defendants as under: a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their licensee, nominees, agents, suppliers, dealers, consignees or any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products LIVOLIV-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected patent rights under patent No.186857 of 20th April 1998 granted A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Anthiepatotoxic Composition in the market throughout India and etc.)1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected Patent rights u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore District, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.7801/2003 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, praying to the pass a judgment and decree against the defendants as under: a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their licensee, nominees, agents, suppliers, dealers, consignees or any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products ‘LIVOLIV-250’ by infringing the plaintiff’s protected patent rights under patent No.186857 of 20th April 1998 granted ‘A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Anthiepatotoxic Composition’ in the market throughout India and etc.) 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24h DAY OF APRIL, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7004/2014 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: PLOT NO.25, 5TH CROSS, J.P. SOFTWARE PARK ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-1, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 100 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SANJAY NAYAK S/O SRI. SHANKAR NAYAK AGED ABOUT49YEARS. (BY SRI N VENKATARAMAN, Sr.COUNSEL A/W SRI K.R.VASUDEVAN & SRI. HARISH ADVOCATES) AND: ... PETITIONER1 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE124), BENGALURU RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BHAVAN (4TH FLOOR) NO.14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, BENGALURU, 2 RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BHAVAN (6TH FLOOR) NO.14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, SR.PANEL COUNSEL) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF JULY, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.56 OF2024IN COM.A.A3OF2024BETWEEN: M/S KLR GROUP ENTERPRISES NO.306, 3RD FLOOR, EMBASSY CHAMBERS, NO.5, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR.P. LAVAKUMAR. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SHASHIDHAR R, ADVOCATE) AND:1. MADHU H V, S/O LATE MR H N VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT27YEARS, 2. MR. MANOHAR V, S/O LATE MR H N VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT31YEARS, 3. MRS. C T BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE MR H N VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT54YEARS, 2 4. MRS. ANITHA W/O LATE MR N SHANKARAPPA @ H N SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT45YEARS, 5. MRS. NIRANJAN GOWDA S, S/O LATE MR N SHANKARAPPA @ H N SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT24YEARS, ALL DEFENDANTS RESIDING AT HEGGONDAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-560087. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRASHANTH G, ADVOCATE FOR R1, S...
Tag this Judgment!