Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-09-2012
(This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the resolution on subject No.149/2009 dated 8.5.2009 passed by respondent No.1 allotting the Civil Amenity Site No.1, in Nagarbhavi layout, 2nd Stage, 2nd Block, Bangalore, to the 2nd respondent and direct 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 27.2.2009 to allot site No.1, Nagarabhavi Layout, 2nd Phase, 2nd Block, Bangalore to it as per Annexure-B etc.) 1. The petitioner, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and an ‘Institution’ as defined in Rule 2(d) of BDA (Allotment of Civil Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 (for short, the Rules), has filed this writ petition questioning the decision of Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’) in allotting Civic Amenity Site No.1, Nagarabhavi Layout, II Stage, II Block, Bangalore, in favour of the 2nd respondent – Mitra Wrunda Youth Association , Bangalor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-08-2012
(Prayer: THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-4 DT.25-3-2003 VIDE ANN. Q.) NAGARATHNA J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.03.2003 passed in M.A.No.55/2003 (Annexure-Q) by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRAT’ for the sake of convenience). By the said order DRAT directed the respondent-Bank to receive the balance amount of Rs.63.00 lakh and release the title deeds related to the scheduled property to the 3rd respondent-institution which was to discharge the entire amount due to the Bank. The 3rd respondent-institution was directed to deposit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as "DRT"), at Bangalore, a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh due to the borrower within two weeks from the date of the impugned order with a further direction to the Presiding Officer DRT to return the said amount to the borrower i.e., the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on : Aug-02-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed U/S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order 14-03-2012 passed by the Single Judge in the Writ Petition No.83129/2011 (S- RES). Oral judgment: Dilip B. Bhosale, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.83129/2011 (S-RES) whereby, the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 - petitioner was finally allowed. The writ petition was preferred by respondent No.1, challenging her removal from service as Anganwadi Worker and appointing respondent No.3 i.e., the appellant in the present writ appeal, to the said post by the Tahsildar, Lingasugur. 2. In the writ petition, on 26.09.2011, an "emergent notice" was issued to the appellant. The order dated 26.09.2011 reads thus: "Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to implead the Tahsildar, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District as Respondent No.4. Permission is granted. He may implead the Tah...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-04-2012
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the G.O. dated 6.11.2012 at Annexures-A and N passed by R1 in prohibition of strike and a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli or issue any other appropriate writ or direction, ect.) 1. Two Orders, both dated 6.11.2012, passed by the State Government; (1) prohibiting strike in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), vide Annexure-A, and (2) an Order of reference made under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Act, vide Annexure-N, have been assailed in this writ petition. 2. Material facts not in dispute are: The petitioner is a Trade Union. On 4.10.2012, vide Annexure-D, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent-Management, for resolving the grievances of the employees, otherwise, a protest dharana would be commenced from 8.10.2012. Annexure-D has a charter of 15 demands. The petitioner served a notice of strike...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-03-2012
VikramajitSen, Chief Justice1. In W.P.No.28263/2004 the learned Single Judge was called upon to decide the question whether a grant of land made to a person whose caste was included in the list of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes subsequent to the Presidential Notification of the year 1950 would nevertheless come within the purview of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the PTCL Act for the sake of brevity) which became operational on 01.01.1979.2. Thelearned Single Judge had analyzed the decision in Obalegappa Versus the Deputy Commissioner ILR 1999 KAR 372 delivered by a Single Bench, as also the three Division Bench judgment in Krishnappa Versus State of Karnataka ILR 1982 KAR 1310, Mahalingappa Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, WA No.2807/1991 decided on 07.11.1995 (unreported) and T.M. Rangaiah Versus Assistant Commissioner Tiptur ILR 2002 KAR 1987. Confronted with conflict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-26-2012
(Prayer: THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE PETITIONER PERMISSION TO END HER LIFE AND TO DIRECT FORMATION OF A COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE TO INTELLIGIBLY AND HUMANELY LEGALIZE EUTHANASIA AND TO DECLARE SECTIONS 306 AND 309 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSOFAR AS IT CONCERNS TO THE PETITIONER.) I propose to commence the order with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, which would read as under: "Some days back a calf having been maimed lay in agony in the ashram. Finally in all humility but with the clearest of convictions I got in my presence a doctor kindly to administer the calf a quietus by means of a poison injection. The whole thing was over in less than two minutes. The question may legitimately be put to me: Would I apply to human beings the principle I have enunciated in connection with the calf? Would I like it to be applied in my own case? My reply is 'Yes'; the same law holds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-22-2012
A S BOPANNA, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 7160/201 1 has filed the suit against the defendants therein seeking for perpetual injunction against the imitation of the plaintiffs artistic works. The plaintiff has also sought for mandatory injunction, interim damages and for rendering accounts of profits earned by such imitation. The plaintiff had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit in IA No.1. The defendants have appeared and disputed the claim of the plaintiff. The Court below after considering the rival contentions on the interlocutory application, has by its order dated 15.12.2011 allowed the application and restrained the defendants. The defendants are therefore before this Court, in this appeal.2. The parties would be referred as per the rank assigned to them before the Court below for the purpose of convenience and clarity.3. Heard Sri Aravind Kamath, learned counsel for the defendants and Ms. Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-17-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as the owner for 6 Acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/1 of Beniganahalli Village, Bangalore East taluk and to direct the respondents to pass an Award in the name of the petitioner for 6 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/1 of Beniganahalli village, Bangalore East taluk etc.,)1. Petitioner is the daughter of late B.M. Appa Reddy, who was the owner of Sy.No.15/1 of Beniganahalli village to an extent of 6 acres 28 guntas. The said land was sought to be acquired for extension of NGEF Factory. For the said purpose, preliminary notification was issued on 6.6.1964 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and final notification was issued on 30.1.1965 under section 6(1) of the said Act. The Award came to be passed on 21.12.1966. According to the respondents, the award amount came to be deposited in the Civil Court on 9.7.1986 i.e. after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-03-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside/quash the appointment of respondent No.3 as Upa Lok Ayukta and direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to appoint a Upa Lok Ayukta after following the mandate in Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 within a time frame as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and etc.,) 1. These two writ petitions are filed by two advocates challenging the appointment of Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retired) as Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. They are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed to in Writ Petition Nos.4852-53/2012. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. One Sri. Janekere C. Krishna, an Advocate is the Petitioner in W.P.No.4852-53/2012, whereas Sri. Ananda Murthy R., an Advocate, is the petitioner in W.P.No.4962/2012. They have pleaded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Mar-22-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to call for records and set aside the order dated 17.03.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, in the Writ Petition No.19684/2007 and etc.,) 1. The appellants are all land owners who have lost their lands or in the process of losing and in fact they are fighting a losing battle to save their lands for livelihood or sustenance due to the compulsory take over of this land by the State Government by issue of notifications u/s 3 (1), (3) and 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short the Act). 2. Appellants/land owners effort to save their lands from the sweep of acquisition by the State Government by filing writ petitions before this Court having failed as the learned Single Judge of this Court opined that there is no merit in the contentions urged in support of the writ petitioners, challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Act and more so, the number of writ petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!