Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 14 substitution of new sections for sections 14 and 15 Court: karnataka Page 6 of about 1,082 results (0.144 seconds)

Hanamant Siddappa Bajantri Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... tests formulated by the hon ble apex court in state of tamil nadu vs. state of kerala and another reported in air2014sc2407 if applied to the present impugned amendment act 4 of 2015, the same has to be held ultravires the constitution.44. in the light of the above said discussion, i am of the view ..... benefits to the petitioners. a(1) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropraite writ by striking down the karnataka education act no.4 of (amendment) 2015 to the section87of the karnataka education amendment act, 2014, passed by respondent no.1, 5 and6 as the same is unconstitutional. these petitions coming on for dictating orders this day ..... schools. the decision of the state government not to extend the increment in 21 question to the teachers and other employees of private aided educational institutions is patently irrational and unjust, particularly, when their counter parts in government school are made available with the said benefit.16. in the light of the above said discussion .....

Shanakarappa Veerabasappa Bannihatti Vs. the Deputy Commissioner Dharw ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1994Kant97

..... land. thereafter, determination of compensation amount to the land owners would arise. it is patent that the provisions of the act are not in pan materia with the provisions of land acquisition. (karnataka extension and amendment) act, 1961 and central act 68/1984.5. the petitioner's counsel submits thatby virtue of section 5 of the ..... is to be stated that liberally mutatis mutandis means nothing more and nothing less than what is envisaged under section 11 of the land acquisition (karnataka extension amendment) act, 1961. section 11 reads:--'enquiry and award (deputy commissioner).-- on the day so fixed, or on any other day so fixed, or on any ..... and state their respective interests in the said land. section 5. application of central act 1 of 1894.-- the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894 (central act 1 of 1894) as amended by the land acquisition (karnataka extension and amendment) act, 1961 shall, mutatis mutandis apply in respect of enquiry and award by the deputy commissioner .....

State of Karnataka and Others Vs. B. Krishna Bhat and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2001KAR2030; 2001(2)KarLJ1

..... habeas corpus; and (b) article 227 of the constitution of india. in krishnappa's case, supra, the full bench held as follows:'the effect of amendment of the high court act, 1961, by the amendment act, 1973, is that, on and after 16th july, 1973, petitions under article 226 of the constitution (except those which relates to issue of a ..... , except the supreme court, with respect to any of the matters in the list'. by the constitution (forty-second amendment) act, 1976, entry 3 in list ii was amended and entry 11-a in list iii was inserted. the amended entries read as follows from 3-1-1977:list ii, entry 3: 'officers and servants of the high court; ..... making power extends to all jurisdiction and powers possessed by the existing high courts, whether at the date of their letters patent or of the government of india act of 1915-1919 or of the government of india act, 1935, or conferred upon it by the constitution itself or subsequent to the commencement of the constitution itself or subsequent to .....

Shankarappa Veerabasappa Bannihatti Vs. Deputy Commissioner

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1993KAR2780; 1994(1)KarLJ293

..... land. thereafter, determination of compensation amount to the land owners would arise. it is patent that the provisions of the act are not in pari materia with the provisions of land acquisition (karnataka extension and amendment) act, 1961 and. central act 68/1984.5. the petitioner's counsel submits that by virtue of section 5 of ..... is to be stated that liberally mutatis mutandis means nothing more and nothing less than what is envisaged under section 11 of the land acquisition (karnataka extension of amendment) act, 1961. section 11 reads:'enquiry and award (deputy commissioner) .- on the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has ..... him and state their respective interests in the said land.section 5. application of central act 1 of 1894:- the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894 (central act 1 of 1894) as amended by the land acquisition (karnataka extension and amendment) act, 1961 shall, mutatis mutandis apply in respect of enquiry and award by the deputy .....

Smt. Susheelamma, W/O Hanumanthrao Deshpande and ors. Vs. State of Kar ...

Court : Karnataka

..... this regard. in this background, however, the stale has enacted the karnataka cooperative textile mills (acquisition and transfer) (amendment) act, 2004 (act 20/2005) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2005 act' for brevity). the said act envisages the acquisition of lands, held on lease for the purposes of the textile mills, with retrospective effect, from the ..... banks, private unsecured creditors and the government itself. the object of acquisition does not sub-serve any public purpose. it is contended that the amendment act is not protected by article 31c of the constitution of india as it does not in any way give effect to any of the directive principles ..... that would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and a negation of history.therefore, it is patent that the impugned legislation is a nullity. accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. the karnataka co-operative textile mills (acquisition and transfer) amendment) act 2004; (act no. 20s of) is null and void as the same is inconsistent with .....

international Instruments Ltd. and ors. Vs. Labour Officer and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (1995)IIILLJ550Kant

..... learned counsel for the workmen, however, contended that section 11 also applied to the number of holidays enjoyed by the workmen on the date of amending the ordinance/amending act. this contention has been specifically negatived in the above judgment and i am entirely in agreement with the said view. the language of the section ..... the working. further, the ordinance has been subsequently replaced by an act called industrial establishments (national and festival holidays) (amendment) act, 1985. it has come into force on 24th april, 1985. the amendment is similar to the ordinance. in view of provisions of the act the petitioners have moved the labour officer for substituting first may, ..... holiday was required to be given though the number of holidays given by the management was already more than what is required under section 3, is patently illegal and, therefore, his order increasing the number of holidays by one was without authority of law.11. learned counsel submitted that the very fact .....

Government of Karnataka Vs. M.R. Thammaiah

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1987KAR3538

..... not attempt - anything more than that. here is a case where the excise commissioner and defendant-2 did some-thing not in pursuance of the act. because, they ignored the patent provisions of the rules governing the sale of right to vend liquor within the coorg district. they collected something from the plaintiff which was not in accordance ..... deposition, he has stated as :'as per ex. p-9 gazette notification bulk arrack was mentioned to cover the entire-state. for coorg district there was an amendment on the basis of telegram for specific case of coorg'.this evidence was not seriously challenged in the cross-examination. plaintiff in his examination in chief does not ..... bulk would make good the loss sustained to some extent. this conduct of the plaintiff also shows that the plaintiff was fully aware of the terms of the amended notification and by this conduct he accepted the same when he became the highest bidder. the only grievance was that since he was suffering losses the government .....

Bangalore Timber Corporation Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1991KAR4013

..... in mohammed hayath v. adinarayana associates, 1984(1) klj 113 has upheld the validity of amending act. according to sub-section (4) of section 1 of the act, the act shall remain in force up to inclusive of 31-12-1982 and upon the lapsing by virtue of section 8 of karnataka general ..... 4 of 1983 to the same effect was promulgated by the governor. the legislature later on 10-9-1983 enacted the amending act no. 17 of 1983. the president assent was accorded on 15-7-1983. the amending act no. 17 of 1983 was made retrospective which came to be challenged before this court. the division bench of this court ..... its operations. in yet another case jilarn trading co. v. mill. mazdoor sabha, : (1966)iillj546sc the supreme court has observed thus: 'if the classification is not patently arbitrary, the court will not rule it discriminatory merely because it involves hardship or inequality of burden. with a view to secure particular objects a scheme may be selected by .....

Arathamma and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka, Department of Housing ...

Court : Karnataka

..... from 24.09.1984. in the present case, the award has been passed on 21.4.1986, that is well within two years from the date of commencement of the amendment act, namely, 24.09.1984. therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the award is not passed within a period of two years from the date of final notification and ..... further by order dated 29.3.1984, it has stated that the compensation should be paid only in respect of area required for the first stage. therefore, it is patent that the property in question which is situated in third stage, vijayanagar, could not be acquired by the second respondent and the government had refused to issue sanction for the ..... has been duly approved from time to time, albeit in stages and that the same has been substantially implemented, as opined in the following cases: 1. w.p.no.6207/2005 - k. sathyanarayana, since deceased by jtiis legal representatives vs. state of karnataka and others disposed of on 17.09.2007. 2. w.a.no.2106/2007 connected with w .....

Arathamma and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka, Department of Housing ...

Court : Karnataka

..... from 24.09.1984. in the present case, the award has been passed on 21.4.1986, that is well within two years from the date of commencement of the amendment act, namely, 24.09.1984. therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the award is not passed within a period of two years from the date of final notification and ..... further by order dated 29.3.1984, it has stated that the compensation should be paid only in respect of area required for the first stage. therefore, it is patent that the property in question which is situated in third stage, vijayanagar, could not be acquired by the second respondent and the government had refused to issue sanction for the ..... has been duly approved from time to time, albeit in stages and that the same has been substantially implemented, as opined in the following cases: 1. w.p.no.6207/2005 - k. sathyanarayana, since deceased by jtiis legal representatives vs. state of karnataka and others disposed of on 17.09.2007. 2. w.a.no.2106/2007 connected with w .....