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 : May-23-2012
(Prayer: These Writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.19936-38/1999 c/w 13829-32/1999 c/w 9564-68/1999 and 22337/1999 dated 18.03.2005.)Vikramajit Sen, C.J.1. It will indeed be a travesty of justice when Courts decline to protect the livelihood of a person who has had the good fortune to receive employment. There is so much debate on whether there can be any meaning or substance in the fundamental right to life if it is bereft of the assurance of income through work. The Republic of India should rightly be proud of schemes guaranteeing, even to a limited extent, rural employment. If the progress of our country cannot be lauded it is on account of the manifestation of the rich getting richer whilst the lot of the vast majority remains stagnant, is reason for regret. Eagerness for engagement in service cannot become a crime unless it is procured by illegal means. This is how we preface the prese...
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 : Jul-05-2012
(Prayer: This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree 2.4.2002 passed in O.S.No.1960/1983 on the file of the I Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction.)1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.2. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that she was married to the first defendant at Somwarpet, Kodagu District on 16.5.1966 as per customary Hindu rites. The first defendant was a medical practitioner and was employed on various assignments, which required him to travel abroad. In the year 1969, he visited England on an assignment, where he had worked up to the year 1971. Thereafter, he had returned to India. He had again left for the United States Of America (Hereinafter referred to as the USA, for b...
Tag this Judgment!