Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-03-1984
Reported in : AIR1986Kant119
..... act according to the directions of the government. these provisions are patently unreasonable and totally unrelated to the object of the act. the section converts owners of the institution into subordinates of the government. sub-sec. (5) of s. 5 which requires the submission of the programmes or plans for improvement of the institution for approval of the government i am also of the view that even on the basis that the object of the act as set out in the preamble falls within the directive of art. 39 ..... have in authorising the imposition of the restrictions, considered them to be reasonable.'on the some point, in the case of mohamud faruk v. state of m. p. : [1970]1scr156 the supreme court stated as follows10. the impugned notification though technically within the competence of the state government, directly infringes the fundamental right ot ..... term by the supreme court in the case of ranganatha reddy : [1978]1scr641 . if the object of a law is to secure bicycle at fair prices to all and the law compels the manufacturer to sell bicycles at half the manufacturing cost, the consequence is obvious. the main material resource, namely, the factory would stiffer heavy loss ..... necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business and therefore the petitioners cannot question the validity of the law relying on sub cl. (1) of c1. (g) of art. 19 of the constitution.(ii) though this point was not pleaded in the statement of objection, being a pure question .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-13-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Kant151
Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) this case was posted before. us for disposal.On 22-11-1982 respondent-2 made an application before the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the DM) for grant of a 'No objection Certificate' (Hereinafter referred to as the NOC) for running a touring cinema, a misnomer, for a non-permanent' or 'temporary' under Section 5 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) and Part IV of Chapter XII of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 framed there under (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules). On receipt of the said application, the DM under rule 96 of the Rules issued Notification No. MAG(2) TT 72/82-83 dt. 23-11-1982 inviting representations and objections to the same. In response to the notification, the' petitioner and four others as members of public filed common objections (Annexure A) opposing the grant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-03-1984
Reported in : AIR1984Kant182; 1984(2)KarLJ236
ORDER1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.), these cases were posted before us for disposal.2. As the petitioners in these cases have challenged the validity of one and the same Act, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. As early as on 31-12-1932, the then Maharaja of Mysore. who was the sovereign Ruler of the then Princely State of Mysore, a model Princely State, aided by a representative assembly and a legislative council, gave his assent to a fairly simple enactment called the Mysore Betting Tax Act, 1932 (Mysore Act 9 of 1932) (hereinafter referred to as the 1932 Act) providing for the imposition of taxes on certain forms of betting in that State. Even after the merger of that Princely State in the Indian Union. the promulgation of the Indian Constitution, the formation of the new State of Mysore, now called as Karnataka, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the 1932 Act has continued on the statute book of the new State with its operation in the ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-07-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Kant166; ILR1984KAR193; 1984(2)KarLJ35
Murlidhar Rao, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Bellary, in H.R.C. Appeal No. 6 of 1973, filed against the order dated 29-1-1973. The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner-Papinayakanahalli Jadiyappa filed a petition for eviction under Section 21(l)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of Door No. 297, ward No. 10 situated at Hospet, Bellary District. His case was, that he had purchased the property, under a registered sale deed, dated 14-6-1966, from its original owner Veerabasamma and that since he was carrying on his business of hardware articles, in two small bunks, leased to him, by the City Municipal Council, Hospet, and as the said premises were unsuitable, inadequate and insufficient for his business and further as the rents in respect of the two bunks were being periodically enhanced by the City Municipal Council, Hospet, he required the premises to carry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-15-1984
Reported in : ILR1986KAR255
Puttaswamy, J. 1. On a reference made by Chandrakantaraj Urs. J, these cases were posted before us for disposal. 2. Evidently on a requisition made by Government of Karnataka, which is also the appointing authority, arrayed as either respondent-1 or respondent-2 in these cases, which will be hereafter referred to as either 'Government' or respondent-1, the Karnataka Public Service Commission, Bangalore, arrayed as either respondent-1 or respondent 2 which will be hereafter referred to or the KPSC or as Respondent-2, in its Notification No. R(1)4109/80-81/PSC dated 5-7-1980 (published in Karnataka Gazette dated 17-7-1980) called for applications from persons possessing the qualifications stipulated therein on or before 20-8-1980 to 108 posts of Lecturers/Museum Curators and Resident Pathologists to be hereafter referred to as Lecturers in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services (Collegiate Branch) of Government. The post of Lecturer is a Class-I Gazetted Post which then car...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-15-1984
Reported in : ILR1984KAR110; 1984(2)KarLJ72
ORDERNesargi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition, filed under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Karnataka Act'), has come up for disposal, before this Court, in view of the order of reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, on 18th November 1982. The order of reference states that the question for consideration is whether the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, in the case of anon-residential permises, have a right to prosecute the proceeding? Further since other cases involving the same question had been already referred to the Division Bench reference in this case became necessary.2. The schedule premises is a non-residential one. One K. Abdul Subhan was running his business in glass-ware. The owner of the property appears to have bequeathed the property in favour of one Muddaveerappa, whose younger brother is one Chikkaveerappa. As Muddaveerappa is an insane person, Chikkaveerappa acted as his guardian. C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-1984
Reported in : [1985(51)FLR15]; (1985)ILLJ243Kant
1. In this batch of 41 writ petitions presented by the I.T.C. Limited, Bangalore, the following important question of law arises for consideration : 'Where the Labour Court, before whom an application is filed by a management of an industry under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) seeking its approval to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against its workman, has the power to make an interim order against the applicant to pay full or part of the wages to the dismissed workman pending final orders on the application ?' 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are these : The workman-respondent, in each of the petitions, was in the employment of the petitioner. Separate disciplinary proceedings were instituted against each of them on certain serious charges of misconduct set out in the article of charges. A domestic inquiry was held against each of them on various dates. The Inquiry Officer recorded a finding to the effect that each of them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-1984
Reported in : ILR1985KAR208
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this batch of 41 Writ Petitions presented by the I.T.C. Limited, Bangalore, the following important question of law arises for consideration :1.Whether the Labour Court, before whom an application is filed by a management of an industry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) seeking its approval to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against its workman, has the power to make an interim order against the applicant to pay full or part of the wages to the dismissed workman pending final orders on the application ?2. The facts of the case, briefly, stated are these :(i) The workman-respondent in each of the Petitions, was in the employment of the petitioner. Separate disciplinary proceedings were instituted against each of them on certain serious charges of misconduct set out in the Article of Charges. A domestic inquiry was held against each of them on various dates. The Inquiry Officer recorded a finding to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-03-1984
Reported in : ILR1984KAR379
Nesargi, J.1. These petitions have been placed before this Bench for final disposal on an order of reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court on 31-1-1984.2. The question of law that is the basis of this reference is, the effect of S. 11 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the. Act) on a proceeding instituted by a landlord of a premises under Cl. (h) of the proviso to S. 21(l) of the Act, seeking for eviction of a tenant residing in the said premises, making out a case that the landlord reasonably and bona fide required the premises for occupation by himself for the purpose of using the same as nonresidential premises.3. These two revision petitions have arisen out of the common order dt.10-101977 passed by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in C. R. Ps. Nos. 79 and 76 of 1977 respectively. The petitioners herein were the petitioners before the District Judge. They had filed the said revision petitions against the orders dt.30-6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-06-1984
Reported in : ILR1984KAR858; 1985(1)KarLJ110; (1985)ILLJ356Kant
ORDERMurlidhar Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Bopanna, J., by his order dated 2nd April, 1982, since his Lordship felt that the interpretation placed by his Lordship in Raghavendra Rao, N. S. v. State of Karnataka & Others (1981 (1) Kar. L.J. 56), requires to be examined by a larger Bench, as the question involved, is of considerable importance. His Lordship has also referred another matter to a Division Bench in W.P. No. 5073 of 1980. 2. The sum and substance of the order of reference is, whether it is incumbent on the Government, to examine the gravity of punishment imposed on the workman, objectively before it refuses to make a reference under Ss. 10 and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a security guard in the security department of the third respondent - the management of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!