Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2008NOC2790(FB); ILR2008(3)KAR2895; 2008(4)KarLJ593; 2008(4)KLJ593; 2008(5)AIRKarR261; AIR2008NOC2790(FB)
..... opinion that it is a fit case for consideration by the full bench. hence, under section 7 of the karnataka high court act, we refer these matters for the opinion of the full bench. in the mean while ..... wiser or more scientific or logical. the court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide....144. in the case of peerless general finance and investment co. v ..... 19th centuries was governed by considerations of administrative convenience and economy and reasons of military strategy and security. with the emergence of nationalism, towards the end of 19th century, the policy of balance and counter ..... go. therefore, to contend that the imposition of study of kannada throws an undue burden on the students is untenable.39. the opinion of the educational experts and international organizations as reflected in news letters, magazines, resolutions world ..... been clearly set out:140. in the case of rustom cavasjee cooper v. union of india : [1970]3scr530 the supreme court held as follows:.but the court will not sit in appeal over ..... times this attitude is coupled with ignorance. in karnataka the government are running schools at their cost for the linguistic minorities with their respective languages as the medium of instruction, even at middle ..... not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in overstepping its limits.150. the policy is essentially for the state to formulate keeping in mind the need and requirements of the people .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1987Kant166
ORDER1. The subject-matter and question of law arising in these cases is one and the same. However, since the factual circumstances and reliefs claimed are distinct and separate, I propose to deal them separately.W. P. No. 5245/1986Petitioner is a Private Limited Company. It manufactures drugs and claims to have supplied its products to various Government establishments, V.I.S.L. and Central Food Technological Research Institute. Established as Small Scale Industry in 1985, it has obtained licence from the competent Authorities.2. On 29th Jan. 1986, Respondent-2 Director of Health and Family Welfare Services invited Tenders from Manufacturers and their Authorised Agents for the supply of drugs, specialities, chemicals, Tinctures and Surgical items. The last date for submission of Tender was 31-3-1986. Petitioner filed this petition on 21st March 1986. By an interim order did. 25th March, 1986, he was permitted to submit his Tender, and Cl. (9) of the Tender conditions was kept in abeya...
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
Reported in : AIR1988Kant312; ILR1988KAR579; 1988(2)KarLJ510
Premchand Jain, C.J.1. The question of law that needs determination by us is in the following terms:'Whether a Division Bench hearing Writ Appeal against an order of single Judge has power to remand the case to the single Judge concerned or not?'. -2. W. P. 5540 of 1975 was rejected by a learned single Judge of this Court on 8th Jan 1976. Writ Appeal 35 of 1976 was preferred against that order which came up for hearing before a Division Bench-of this Court. Without going into the merits of the case, on the points that arose for consideration, the appellate Bench passed the following order'For the reasons stated above, we set aside the order under appeal and remand W.P.5540/75 for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the appellant to impaled the State Government and the owner of the land. Writ Appeal allowed. No costs,Sd/- K. Bhimiah, Judge. Sd/-S.M.Sait,Judge. 3. Earlier in this Court a question had arisen regarding the power-of the Division Bench to remand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1980Kant130
ORDER1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases. I propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Among others, the petitioners, who own lea than five powerlooms claim to be solely engaged in the manufacture of coloured sarees in the several parts of Karnataka State but with considerable concentration at places like Banahatti, Rabkavi, Terdal, Mahalingapur and some other places of Bijapur, Dharwar and Belgaum Districts. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause 20 f the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order 1948 (hereinafter -referred to as the Control Order), the joint Textile Commissioner, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') by Notifications Nos. CER/10/77 and CER/2/77 dated 15th April. 1977, has issued various directions regulating the production of cotton textiles by different manufacturers in the country to be In force till 31-8-1982. By one of the directions, owners of less than five powerlooms are prohibited fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant97; 1989(2)KarLJ202
ORDER1. Common prayer in these series is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear respondents from interfering with their right to excavate, remove and transport granite found in his/their patta land/s.2. Most of the petitioners are from old State of Mysore and a few from Kollegal, which on re-organization has become part and parcel of Mysore District. They trace their right to excavate granite either to proviso to S. 38 of Mysore Land Revenue Code and notification issued thereunder or the Madras Board Standing Order. In support of their prayer, reliance is placed on catena of decisions of this Court to which a reference would be made a little later.3. Respondents in their statement of objections dispute their right to extract minor minerals except in accordance with the Rules framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Specific reference is made to Ch. II of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1995Kant290; 1996(6)KarLJ464
ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the two petitioners, who are Advocates of this Court, as public interest litigation seeking the issuance of (a) writ of prohibition or order or direction against respondents 3 to 4 directing them not to exhibit Kannada film 'Kona Eedaite' (which means in English that He Buffalo gives birthto a calf), on 2-2-1995, or on any subsequent dates in any film Cinema, theatre and Celluloid for general public either in the State of Karnataka, or anywhere within the territory of India, as well as, for directing respondents 1 and 2 to take back/withdraw the certificate/permission for exhibition of the aforesaid Kannada Film and for costs.While, moving the writ petition, the petitioners also prayed for an ex parte interim order directing respondents not to exhibit the film on 2-2-1995 or on subsequent dates pending decision or disposal of this writ petition by the Court after witnessing and examining finding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1992Kant163; 1992(1)KarLJ497
ORDER1. This is a petition under S. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code') seeking withdrawal of O.S. No, 146/89 pending in the Court the Civil Judge, Chikmagalur, and to retransfer the same to the Court of the Civil Judge, Puttur, for trial and disposal in accordance with law. Sri G. IX Rao, working as Officer in the Zonal Office of the petitioner-Bank, has filed his affidavit in support of the prayer.2. Sri B. R. Aswatharam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 5, are heard. Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 are served, but are unrepresented.3. The matter arises in this way: The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein are plaintiff and defendants Nos. ! to 5 in the suit sought to be transferred. They would be referred to as such in the course of this order.4. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 38/88 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Puttur in Dakshina Kannada District, seeking a decree against defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR2817; 1988(2)KarLJ455
Shyamasundar, J.1. This appeal is from an order made by the 15th City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on I.As. 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 4369 of 1986, on the 31st of January 1987. By the aforesaid order the learned Judge, affirmed the ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiff in the suit, restraining in particular the 1st defendant from utilising for its own purpose the suit property being a vacant land measuring 51 acres in extent, situate in the City of Bangalore, during the pendency of the suit.2. It would appear, the 1st defendant in the suit being the Life Insurance Corporation of India, (to be shortly called the 'Corporation') who is admittedly the owner of the suit plot had arranged for laying a foundation stone on the 26th of September, 1986 signifying the commencement of a project for constructing 122 houses on the suit plot for the benefit of the policy holders of the Corporation, accredited to the Bangalore Division.3. By an ad interim injunction the Court stopped any steps being tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR4242
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. This petition is presented by Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple, Bangalore, represented by its Committee of Dhamadarshis questioning the legality of the order of the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk allowing the applications filed by respondents-1 to 10 under Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and granting them occupancy rights in respect of land in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village, Bangalore North Taluk.2. The brief facts of the case and the history of the previous litigation regarding the claims of respondents-1 to 10 for grant of occupancy rights are these:-(i) Sarvamanya Neelasandra village, Bangalore North Taluk was a religious and charitable Inam in favour of the petitioner temple. The former State of Mysore enacted the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. Under the provisions of the Act all religious inam lands stood vested in the State Government with effect from 1-4-1959, on which date the Act came into force. The...
Tag this Judgment!