Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant1; ILR2002KAR2377
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J. 1. All these three civil revisions are filed by the eight plaintiffs in O.S. No. 14/1997 pending on the file of the Court of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Gadag, and the common respondents herein are the defendants in that suit. They are filed against the respective orders of the lower appellate Court by which the plaintiffs' I.A. No. 1 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC came to be dismissed and the trial Court's order allowing defendant No. 1's I.A. No. 9 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC stands affirmed. 2. The said O.S. No. 14/1997 of the petitioners-plaintiffs was instituted in the trial Court on 6-1-1997 against respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') for the following main reliefs : '(20) It is Most Humbly Prayed and Submitted that : (a) Plaintiffs be declared as hereditary Pricharika and Parupatyagar of Veeranarayan and other temples in the vicinityalong with Defendant No. 2. (b) The notice of termination dated 13-10-1995 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1992Kant215
ORDERShivashankar Bhatt, J. 1. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of Ss. 4 and 4A of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short) as unconstitutional. The main attack is founded on Articles 14 and 304(b) of the Constitution.2. All the petitioners are owners of cinema theatres located at various towns and cities in the State of Karnataka.3. Following contentions were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners :I(a) Section 4 of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, since unequals are treated as equals, inasmuch as the Section does not classify the exhibitors with reference to the area, wherein the theatre is located, its population, size and nature of the theatre etc. All kinds of exhibitors, irrespective of their capacity to earn or capacity to entertain, are treated alike. (b) The Table in Section 4 provides for different rates on shows depending upon the highest rate of admission fee in a theatre. Since all theat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 PRESENT THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION No.6872/2013(KLR)BETWEEN : 1 . SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED50YEARS2. 3 . 4 . SRI NAGESH S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED32YEARS SRI MAHESH S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED31YEARS PETITIONER Nos. 1 TO3ARE R/A NO.490/A, ACCS LAYOUT D BLOCK, SINGASANDRA CHIKKABEGUR ROAD, MADIVALA PO, BANGALORE68 SMT. ROOPA W/O D S NAGARAJ AGED28YEARS (BY SRI SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS SRI S.P. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL AS AMICUS CURIAE, ...PETITIONERS SRI K. SUMAN, AS AMICUS CURIAE, SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL, SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE, SRI BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE, 2 SRI UDAYAPRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE, SRI RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE, SRI AJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, SMT. CHANNAMMA, ADVOCATE, SRI G.B. SHASTRY, ADVOCATE TO ASSIST HONBLE COURT) AND: 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . THE STATE OF...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE7h DAY OF APRIL, 2021 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1628/2018 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1659/2018, 1840/2018, 1937/2018, 1960/2018, 1976/2018 AND612019 BETWEEN:1. SRI BHOOSHITH B., S/O BHAGWANT RAO, AGED ABOUT27YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, 6TH MAIN, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560052. ...APPELLANT IN CRL.A.1628/2018 (BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONGWITH SRI SYED MUZAKKIR AHMED, ADVOCATE) 2. SANDHYA @ SANJANA D/O BRAMACHARI K. N., AGED ABOUT32YEARS, R/AT NO.207, 3RD CROSS, K.E.B. LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU CITY-560094. ...APPELLANT IN CRL.A.1659/2018 (BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) 2 3. KUMAR @ ANJENEYA S/O. MARIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT38YEARS, R/AT No.182, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, KVK LAYOUT, DEEPANJALI NAGAR, MYSURU ROAD, BENGLAURU56002. ...APPELLANT IN CRL. A. No.1840/2018 (BY SRI SANDESH J CHOUTA SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI ISMAIL M MUSBA, ADVOCATE) 4....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR1906; 1994(4)KarLJ485
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. This is a Petition for Review of an Order passed by an earlier Division Bench consisting of MOHAN C.J. and SHIVARAJ PAUL, J. on 27th September 1991, dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 2473 of 1991 filed by the present petitioners, who are the heirs of the original Writ-petitioner viz., C.N. Byrappa.2. A few facts which are leading to the present Review proceedings deserve to be noted at the out-set. The original Writ-petitioner, who filed Writ Petition No. 5206 of 1987 under Article 226 of the Constitution, had called in question the correctness and legality of the orders of the Assistant Commissioner (3rd respondent herein) at Annexure-A to the petition as well as the Deputy Commissioner (2nd respondent herein) at Annexure-B to the petition, respectively. The dispute centered round 3A-09G out of 09A-28G of land in Sy.No.90 of Chandalapura village, Chickaballapur Taluk, Kolar District. These lands were granted in favour of Kempanna father of Chowdappa, 4th respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE31T DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.36727/2017(GM-CPC) R BETWEEN: SMT. JABEENA HUSSAINI, D/O LATE GULAM HUSSIAN, W/O MOHAMMED RAFIQ, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ, AGED ABOUT53YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, UNITED TRADING CO. SHOP NO.93, A-BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU. (BY SRI SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR P., AGED ABOUT47YEARS, GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.NANDI(NANDINI)ROLLER FLOOR, MILLES PRIVATE LIMITED, ... PETITIONER2NO.16/B, 17-A, BELAGOLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, K.R.S.ROAD, MYSURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. C. GURU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED88.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN M.A.NO.16/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PRONOUNC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR2468
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of sections 4 and 4-A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short) as unconstitutional. The main attack is founded on articles 14 and 304(b) of the Constitution. 2. All the petitioners are owners of cinema theatres located at various towns and cities in the State of Karnataka. 3. Following contentions were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners : I. (a) Section 4 of the Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution, since unequals are treated as equals, inasmuch as the section does not classify the exhibitors with reference to the area, wherein the theatre is located, its population, size and nature of the theatre, etc. All kinds of exhibitors, irrespective of their capacity to earn or capacity to entertain, are treated alike. (b) The table in section 4 provides for different rates on shows depending upon the highest rate of admission fee in a theatre. Sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ABDUL NAZEER, J 1. In this case, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the decision/resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the BESCOM in its meeting held on 28.8.2010 in subject No.43/2006 in so far as it relates to award of the contract against enquiry No.BCP-396/2008-09 (Tender Notification – Annexure ‘A’) dated 1.4.2008 pertaining to Single Phase 5-30 Amps Class 1 State energy meter in favour of the third respondent and for quashing the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 27.102010 (Annexure ‘R’) in appeal No.EN.198.EEB.2010. The petitioner has further sought for a mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent not to accept the bid/tender submitted by the third respondent in pursuance of the tender Notification at Annexure ‘A’ and to consider the bid of the petitioner and other bidders, who have qualified in the techno commercial bid and in the price bid in accordance with law. 2. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR3392:2009(4)KCCR2895:2009(6)AIRKarR252.
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioners have questioned the Notification vide Annexure-'F' dated 17.1.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent- The Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act' for short), as also the notices issued under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act vide Annexures-'G-1' and 'G-2' dated 15.5.2008, calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of the acquired properties. The petitioners have also prayed in the writ petition that the South End Metro Railway Station may be located in Survey No. 6/1 and 6/2 of Dasarahalli (Jayanagar Extension). Alternatively, it is prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to construct the South End Metro Railway Station as per the original approved design and alignment vide proceedings at Annexure-'A' on the property earlier earmarked for South tend Metro Railway Station.2. The averments in the writ petition disclose th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF AUGUST, 2020 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH MFA No.100918/2020 (GM-CPC) c/w MFA NO.101088/2020 MFA NO.100918 OF2020Between:1. Shree Samsthana Mahabaleshwara Deva Gokarna, Rep. by Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji Aged about 42 years, Peetadhipathi Shri Ramachadrapura Matha, Haniya Village, Hosanagara Taluka Shimoga District Administrative Office Shree Mahabaleshwara Temple Gokarna, Kumta Taluk, Uttara Kannada.2. Shri Ramachandrapura Matha Rep by Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji, Aged 42 years Peetadhipathi Shri Ramachandrapura Matha Haniya Village, Hosanagara Taluka, Shimoga District, Administrative Office Shree Mahableshwara Temple Gokarna, Kumta Taluk. The Appellant No.1 is represented by the 2 Special Power of Attorney Holder Sri. Ganapati K.Hegde, S/o Krishnaiah Hegde Aged 71 years, Administrator Shree Samsthana Mahabaleshwara Deva, Gokarna, Kumta Taluk, U.K. District.3. Shri Krishna S/o Gan...
Tag this Judgment!