Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-14-1994
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
Decided on : Aug-25-1994
Reported in : 1995(1)ALT(Cri)438; 1994CriLJ3689; ILR1994KAR2513; 1994(4)KarLJ147
ORDER1. In these three contempt petitions under sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act for short), the complainants have sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/accused and to punish them in accordance with law of disobedience of the orders made by the subordinate Courts. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the these cases are as follows :- The complainant in C.C.C. No. 605 of 1994 filed a suit in O.S. No. 92 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff, Chintamani, for a declaration that the notice in No. FA-KIP-652-53 dated 28-1-1993 issued by the respondent herein was illegal and for permanent injunction restraining him from disconnecting the electricity to installation No. KIP 19 of Chinnasandra village belonging to the complainant. After the notice was served, on the undertaking given by the respondent, the Court by its order dated 25-2-1993 directed not to disconnect power to the said installation of the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-30-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR3018; 1995(1)KarLJ15
Tirath Singh Thakur, J. 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the validity of an order of dismissal passed against him by the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Respondent-Company and that passed by the Board of Directors dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the same. The petitioner has also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate him against the post originally held by him with continuity of service and payment of salary and allowances etc.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this Petition may be stated first:The petitioner was at the relevant time working as the Joint General Manager of H.M.T. Factory-I and II at Bangalore. Being qualified to get a motor car advance for the purchase of a Motor Car, the petitioner made a request for such an advance, which request was granted and a loan of Rs. 45,000/- sanctioned by the competent authority in his favour. The petitioner dr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1994
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
Decided on : Apr-19-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR2068; 1995(1)KarLJ219
R. Ramakrishna, J.1. This Appeal is confined to the order on I.A.No. I, dated 2-3-1984 passed by the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No. 7087 of 1983. The learned Civil Judge passed a common order on I.A.Nos. I and II. I.A.No. I is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first respondent prayed for grant of a temporary injunction ^straining the appellant and the second respondent from printing, publishing or in any manner using in relation to any news papers, publications, magazines, periodicals or stationery bearing the impugned trade mark 'Financial Times' or any other deceptively similar trade mark so as to infringe the plaintiff's registered trade mark No. 468937. By I.A.No. II the relief claimed was an order of temporary injunction under 'he same provisions of law to restrain the appellant to pass off or enable others to pass off the first respondent's publication arid for the benefit of the first respondent a...
Tag this Judgment!