Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3463; 2004(5)KarLJ161
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The appellant, namely, Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the generation and supply of power in the State of Karnataka. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, for short, The 'KPTCL', the first respondent herein, is a Company established under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to the enactment of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, for short, 'the Act' whereunder the Karnataka Electricity Board, the KEB, for short, was trifurcated into three Companies. Respondent No. 2 is Government of Karnataka (GOK).2. Pursuant to the Notifications and the subsequent clarifications issued by the Government of India in March 1992 setting out the norms for determining the tariff payable to the generating Companies, by an order dated 7th March, 1994, approval was granted by GOK to the appellant for setting up a power project of 300 MW and selling power directly to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR2605; 1994(3)KarLJ378
S.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. These group of matters comprised in List-1 and II are referred to a Full Bench pursuant to an order of the Division Bench of this Court consisting of two of us, (SBM, CJ., and NDVBJ) dated 30.7.1993 as according to the Division Bench, there was a conflict between the Decisions rendered by Mr. Chandrakantaraj Urs, in Writ Petition No. 4563/87, and group decided on 14.7.1987 and as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2059-2096/87 and connected matters decided on 2.12.1987, and against which Judgments, several Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court on the one hand and Judgment of Mr. Justice Doddakalegowda, in NANJANAYAKA AND ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. etc., : AIR1990Kant97 and which was the subject matter of pending appeals before a Division Bench on the other. The Division Bench placing reliance on the Decision of the Full Bench of this Court in : AIR1993Kant306 referred the entire group of these matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5819; 2006(2)KarLJ579
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner aggrieved by the cancellation of the allotment of a site by the 1st respondent, and the subsequent allotment of the very same site to the 2nd respondent, followed by the execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement, is before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction.2. Briefly stated, facts not in dispute are:(i) The Petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, incorporated on 07.12.1990 with the objects, preaching Islamic principles, promote education, establish madarasa, amongst other objects as set out in the Memorandum, Annexure-B.(ii) The layout plan Annexure D for formation of a residential layout in the name of 'Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia'. was accorded sanction by the State of Karnataka, at the instance of the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, for short CITB, on 27.01.1987. The 1st respondent authority was constituted on 25.09.1988, consequent upon the notification, duly gazatted, extending the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3148
ORDERShyamasundar, J. 1. These and other connected Writ Petitions running into two or three thousand in number are directed against four common entities who are arrayed as respondents in these Writ Petitions, their commonness extending even to their itemised positions in the Petitions in that the State is arrayed as the first respondent in all these petitions, the Deputy Commissioners as respondent No. 2, the Administrators as respondent No. 3 and the Mandal Panchayats as respondent No. 4. The common characteristic as aforesaid does not stop just there but spreads even to the factual aspects and the legal issues raised in every one of these Writ Petitions challenging the appointment of Administrators to all the Mandal Panchayats existing in the State of Karnataka numbering in all about 2534 according to information furnished at the hearing of the Writ Petitions.2. The petitioners in all these cases are the Pradhans of the Mandal Panchayats. The office of a Pradhan is an electoral one. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1504; 1992(3)KarLJ96
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The facts of this Review Petition show how inadvertance, negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the Advocate appearing for a public authority and the officers of the Authority could create enormous problems for it and complicate an otherwise simple matter, causing considerable amount of inconvenience and hardship to large number of people.2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the presentation of the Review Petition and which are necessary for the disposal of the Review Petitions are as follows:-(i) By Notification dated 3rd January, 1977, the Bangalore Development Authority ('B.D.A.' for short) published a Scheme under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (herein- after referred to as 'the Act') for formation of Gokul II Stage Rajamahal Vilas II Stage Lay Out. The development scheme covered an area of 1,334 acres 12 guntas of land situate in 8 villages including Mathikere, Chikkamarenahalli and Dyavasandra villages in Bangalore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(1)KarLJ469
P.V. Reddi, C.J.1. These appeals are filed by a Housing Co-operative Society which was one of the respondents in the writ petitions decided by the learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 6-9-1996. The learned Judge quashed the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 1-12-1988 on the ground that the requirement of Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act has not been fulfilled. The learned Judge observed that the Counsel appearing for the Government did not produce any record to show that there was a scheme submitted by the appellant-Society and the same was approved by the Government.2. Relevant portion of Section 3(f) reads as follows: 'The expression 'public purpose' includes:(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3169
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. A. 1 is convicted for an offence punishable Under Section. 87 r/w Section 379 IPC and sentenced to S.I. for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo SI. for two months. In the charge sheet there are three accused persons.... A.2 and A.3 are absconding and the case against them is split up before the trial Court. A. 1 is tried and convicted.2. The prosecution case discloses that A. 1 was the driver of a private jeep. A.2 and A.3 were the inmates of the jeep. When the forest officials intercepted and checked the jeep, they found 100 Kgs. of sandal wood consisted in 47 rough dressed billets. Under a mahazar, the contraband is seized. The facts of the prosecution case disclose that all the three accused persons shared common intention and were smuggling the sandal wood.3. The charge sheet material discloses that all the accused persons shared common intention and were jointly transporting sandal wood billets. There is a grave lapse o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR2648; 1999(3)KarLJ99
ORDER1. Appointments on compassionate grounds in the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka are governed by what are known as Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 framed under Section 8 of Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. The rules permit such appointments in favour of the dependents of a deceased Government servant subject to the fulfillment of the conditions stipulated for the purpose. One of the conditions prescribed is that the family of the deceased Government servant is facing financial crisis or destitution. Rule 5 of the rules requires that every dependent of a deceased Government servant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds shall make an application to the Head of the Department in which the deceased was serving within one year from the date of the death of the Government servant in such form as may be notified. In the case of minor dependents, the proviso to the rule permits an application within one year after he/she ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR1764; 2006(2)KarLJ565
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the endorsement issued on 11-11-2003 and 4-6-2004, vide Annexures-H and J rejecting the request made for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The claim for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules'), there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the step children of the deceased.2. Before dealing with the legal point that is canvassed by the Counsel for the petitioner, few facts which will have bearing on the question raised can be referred to.Petitioner is the son of Smt. Janakamma born out of the wedlock between Smt. Janakamma and her first husband. After the death of the father of the petitioner Smt. Janakamma contracted another marriage with one S. Keriyappa on 24-4-1986. This was a registered marriage. It is claimed that at the time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR961
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The appellant, aggrieved by the order of Bhimiah, J., dated 12th August 1976, rejecting W. P. 6933 of 1976 at the stage of preliminary hearing, has preferred this appeal.2. The second respondent alleging he is a tenant of 3 acres 35 guntas of agricultural land in Sy. No. 483 (P) of Shirguppa, Bellary District, filed an application for registration of occupancy under S. 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 19,61 (hereinafter called the Act). The appellant is the land holder. The facts alleged in the application do not appear to have been verified by the Tahsildar with reference to the Record of Rights as is required to be done under R. 19 of the Rules framed under the Act. The second respondent made an application before the first respondent Tribunal for the issue of an order of injunction. The Tribunal without issuing notice of that application to the appellant straightway passed an order granting interim injunction against the appellant. Coming to know of th...
Tag this Judgment!