Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-31-1997
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
Decided on : Feb-28-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR833
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. In view of the principal question of law and the reliefs being one and the same, in all these petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Petition Nos. 9357/96, 10750/96, 10630/96 and 11374/96 are originally filed for quashing the Notification dated March 13, 1996 issued by the Director of Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, the first respondent in all these petitions, inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects and, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion and to prohibit the respondent to resort to appointment to those posts by direct recruitment.3. Writ Petition No. 36710/95 is filed for a writ of mandamus to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of lecturer to that of an Assistant Professor in Cardiology as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules produced at Annexure-A and the decision of the Sub-Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-14-1997
Reported in : ILR1998KAR251; 2000(3)KarLJ214
ORDER1. A common question has been raised in a batch of writ petitions. The above case has been treated as the lead case and all the Counsels interested in the question raised in the group have been heard. Besides, thisCourt requested Mr. M.C. Narasimhan and Mr. K. Kasturi to appear and assist the Court. They have commendably discharged their duties.2. Sri S.N. Murthy led the arguments on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Vijayashankar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Smt. S. Sujatha, learned Government Pleader, defended the State.3. The area of controversy is regarding the implementation and working of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). All the questions that might plausibly arise have been considered by the Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Others . Yet, in view of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, it has become n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-02-1997
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ694
ORDER1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to the effect that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 24-8-1984 in Writ Petition No. 4490 of 1984 by this Hon'ble Court vide Annexure-B to the writ petition and to pass suitable orders.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the land involved is measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of land of Sy. No. 53/A and Sy. No. 53/AA measuring 3 acres 29 guntas, situate in village Ben-Chincholi, Tq. Humnabad, District Bidar. These lands originally are alleged to have belonged to one Bandappa who was alleged to be the exclusive owner in possession of the property. The parties to the case are related as under. The following tree will indicate the relationship of the parties and is material for the purpose of the case. Bandappa s/o MariappaSambanna Laxmappa KallappaChandrappa Ismail3. Writ Petition No. 4490 of 1984 had been filed by Annappa s/o Bhimrao, challenging the order of the Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-17-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1433
G. Patribasavana Goud, J.1. In WP. No. 1888 of 1997 filed by the Employees Union of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., and in the connected Writ Petitions filed by others under Article 226 of the Constitution, constitutional validity of Section 2(9)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act' for short) as amended by Act 29 of 1989, and the validity of Rule 50 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 ('Rules' for short), together with Rules 51 and 54 thereof, as amended by the Employees' State Insurance (Central)(Second Amendment) Rules, 1996 under Notification dated 23.12.1996, are questioned.2. While issuing Rule Nisi and passing a conditional order of stay, Learned Single Judge, by his order dated 4.2.1997, referred the said Writ Petition No. 1888 of 1997 and the connected Writ Petitions to the Division Bench. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('Corporation' for short) has also preferred Writ Appeal No. 1436 of 1997 as against the said conditiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-29-1997
Reported in : ILR1998KAR847
ORDERTirath S. Thakur1. Even though this petition is posted only for orders, the same has been heard for final disposal with consent. 2. By a notification dated 13th of July 1965, the Government of Karnataka in exercise of its powers Under Section 16(a) of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, exempted from payment of tax motor vehicles exclusively owned and used by institutions doing charitable work and those owned by individuals for giving free medical aid to the public or for providing relief such as supplying food, clothing and medicine in times of natural clamities.Pursuant to the said-notification, a 1969 model motor vehicle bearing Engine No. TI 6697, Chassis No. 1883 and owned by the petitioner Father Mullers Hospital, Kankanady, Mangalore was exempted from payment of tax under the Act subject to the condition that the exemption would be valid only tilt such time the vehicle was owned by the said institution and used for the purposes specified in the Government notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-15-1997
A.M. Farooq, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 19-4-1997, in Miscellaneous Case No. 23/97 on the file of the learned District Judge, Dakshin Kannada at Mangalore. 2. The appellant herein filed an application before the Lower Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') and sought for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents, his men or agents or any person claiming through him from trespassing into or in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of A and B Schedule properties shown in the application. 3. Alongwith the said application, the appellant herein also filed I.A. No. II under Section 9(d) of the Arbitration Act read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, C.P.C. and sought for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction against the respondents and his men. 4. After entertaining the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-23-1997
Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)183; 1998CriLJ1005; ILR1998KAR910
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code questioning the order passed by the JMFC., Kundapura, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 3025/1996. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for the respondent. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that if the entire case of the petitioner is taken into consideration no offence is made out as against these petitioners who are qualified Doctors and no negligence can be attributed to these petitioners. It is also submitted that act of these petitioners are well protected under law. Therefore the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is abuse of the process of the Court and calls for interference. 3. However, the learned State Public Prosecutor contended that all these grounds can be urged by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate and it is too early for this Court to interfere with the order p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-12-1997
Reported in : 1998(3)KarLJ634
1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 6-4-1991 passed in O.S. No. 3 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chintamani. In passing the said Judgment and decree the Civil Judge was pleased to decree the suit in part. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri P. Subba Rao and the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao. I have also perused the case records including the case records of the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, hereinafter referred to for convenience as the Civil Judge. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-- The appellants herein are the L.Rs of the original plaintiff by name K.R. Rajalakshmi Devi. The appellants 1 and 2 are her sons and the appellant 3 is her husband. The original plaintiff-Rajalakshmi Devi died on 26-12-1987 during the pendency of the suit. She had filed originally O.S. No. 5 of 1973 before the Court of Civil Judge, Kolar, as against h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-15-1997
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the order dated 19-4-1997, in Miscellaneous Case No. 23 of 1997, on the file of the learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada at Mangalore.2. The appellant herein filed an application before the lower Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') and sought for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent, his men or agents or any person claiming through him from trespassing into or in any way interfering with the peaceful possession andenjoyment of A and B Schedule properties shown in the application.3. Along with the said application, the appellant herein also filed I.A. II under Section 9(d) of the Arbitration Act read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, CPC and sought for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction against the respondent and his men.4. After entertaining the application, the Trial Cou...
Tag this Judgment!