Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1986Kant119
ORDER1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, in which the petitioners, who are the managements as also individuals, who are members of the management of various private engineering colleges in the State, have questioned the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 ('the Act' for short) and orders issued thereunder, the following main question arises forconsideration :Where the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Arts. 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution includes the right to establish and administer the Educational Institutions of their choice? and if.so, whether the Act which prohibits the collection of Capitation Fee for admission to Education Institutions except to the extent permitted by an order made under the proviso to S. 3 of the Act is violative all or any of those Articles and, Arts. 14, 31A and 300A of the Constitution?Facts of the Case :Originally the Writ Petitions were presented quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3068; 1992(3)KarLJ355
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In these Petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of the building licence and the sanctioned plan issued to the fourth respondent by the first respondent - Planning Authority and the second respondent -City Corporation. There is also a prayer for a direction to enforce the Zonal Regulations issued under the Outline Development Plan (ODP) and Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). The further prayer seeks the demolition of the offending structure put up by the fourth respondent. The petitioners also have filed I.As.II and III, I.A.II for the amendment of the Writ Petition and to treat I.A.III as additional statement. Petitioners are permitted to seek this additional prayer and these I.As.II and III are read part of these Writ Petitions. The result is that the petitioners seek the quashing of two Government Orders, one dated 8th November 1984 and another dated 17th October 1985. As per the earlier order dated 8.11.84 Government accorded approval for relaxatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)
(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Bangalore District, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.7801/2003 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, praying to the pass a judgment and decree against the defendants as under: a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their licensee, nominees, agents, suppliers, dealers, consignees or any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products LIVOLIV-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected patent rights under patent No.186857 of 20th April 1998 granted A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Anthiepatotoxic Composition in the market throughout India and etc.)1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected Patent rights u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore District, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.7801/2003 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, praying to the pass a judgment and decree against the defendants as under: a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their licensee, nominees, agents, suppliers, dealers, consignees or any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products ‘LIVOLIV-250’ by infringing the plaintiff’s protected patent rights under patent No.186857 of 20th April 1998 granted ‘A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Anthiepatotoxic Composition’ in the market throughout India and etc.) 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24h DAY OF APRIL, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7004/2014 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: PLOT NO.25, 5TH CROSS, J.P. SOFTWARE PARK ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-1, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 100 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SANJAY NAYAK S/O SRI. SHANKAR NAYAK AGED ABOUT49YEARS. (BY SRI N VENKATARAMAN, Sr.COUNSEL A/W SRI K.R.VASUDEVAN & SRI. HARISH ADVOCATES) AND: ... PETITIONER1 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE124), BENGALURU RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BHAVAN (4TH FLOOR) NO.14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, BENGALURU, 2 RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BHAVAN (6TH FLOOR) NO.14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, SR.PANEL COUNSEL) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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
Reported in : ILR1992KAR444; 1991(3)KarLJ308
ORDERHiremath, J.1. The petitioner in this Election Petition is the son of Sri T.Mariappa a freedom fighter, an ardent and zealous Congressman and also one time Home Minister of the erstwhile Government of Mysore before reorganisation of States between 1947 and 1952. He hailed from Beereswarapura in Nagamangala Taluk and a very popular political leader. Even after reorganisation of States he contested from Nagamangala constituency in the General Elections of 1957, succeeded and was the Finance Minister in the Mysore State Government till 1962. In the later elections he did not contest due to ill-health and passed away in the year 1964. Perhaps the petitioner did not think of entering into politics during the life time of his father. He however joined the Congress Party in the year 1967. He is a graduate in Engineering and took his education at Bangalore throughout. It appears he has been faithful to the Party ever since he joined it. For the first time he sought ticket in the year 1978...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ116
Acts/Rules/Orders:Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 8, 14, 18, 19, 32, 38-B, 65, 69, 70 and 71;Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1994;Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 - Rules 3, 4(2), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 14(3);Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 6 and 7Provincial Insolvency Act, 1963;Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226;Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976;Housing Act, 1957 - Section 105(1);Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 60(1) - Order 33, Rule 1;Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909;Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920;Provincial Insolvency (Karnataka, Extension and Amendment) Act, 1962;Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 4, 6, 7, 10, 28, 35, 36, 37 and 60Cases Referred:S.P. Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149;Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D 458;Reed Bowen and Company, (1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2451; [1985]60STC361(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. In these two petitions the petitioner is the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., Belgaum, a public limited company. The petitioner is a manufacturer of aluminium and its alloys in all forms, ingots, aluminium billets and other by-products. 2. The petitioner-company is a registered dealer both under the KST and CST Acts. For the period 1st April, 1973 to 31st March, 1974 the petitioner's turnover was subjected to tax under the KST and CST Acts by assessment order dated 21st July, 1975 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Dharwar. 3. The petitioner assesses returned a gross turnover of Rs. 12,93,87,969.09 for the period in question. In the assessment completed under the KST Act, the sales effected within the State were subjected to tax at the rate of 6 per cent. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of its inter-State sales of the aggregate value of Rs. 1,03,28,598.74. The assessing officer, on scrutiny of the documents produced by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!