Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: WP filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike down provisions of Section 39A(2) and Section 28A(5) of C.S. Act as being unconstitutional and unworkable and etc.) H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioners are inter alia challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 39-A(2) and 28-A(5) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (the State Act for short). Petitioner No.1 is a Secondary Society (the Society for short). 2. Sub-section (5) of Section 28-A and sub-section (2) of Section 39-A of the State Act read as follows: 28-A(5). If the new board is not constituted under Section 29-A, on the date of expiry of the term of office of the board or if the elections are not held within the time-limits specified in Section 39-A, the Registrar or any other officer within whose jurisdiction the society is situated and who is authorized by the Registrar, shall be deemed to have assumed charge as Administrator and he shall, or al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 W.P.No.9274/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF MARCH2015BEFORE R THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.9274/2015 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN:1. 2.3. BELTHANGADI TALUK RUBBER BELEGAR MARAT & SAMSKARN SAHAKAR SANGAT NIYAMIT UJRE, DHAKSHINA KANNADA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI SHRIDAR G BHIDE SRI SHRIDAR G BHIDE S/O G.N.BHINDE AGED ABOUT59YEARS R/A BHINDE HOUSE MUNDAJE BELTHANGADI TALUK DHAKSHINA KANNADA N PADMANABH S/O M KESHAV VICE PRESIDENT AGED ABOUT77YEARS MANINJE HOUSE, KUKKALA BELTHANGADI TALUK DHAKSHINA KANNADA ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE) AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY2W.P.No.9274/2015 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKER ROAD BANGALORE 560 052 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M S BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001 2.3. 4.5. (BY SRI M KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. Though all the appeals are filed assailing the order sated 1-3-2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.14293 and 14294 of 1996 (S), the appeals in W.A.Nos.1004 and 1497 of 2001 are filed by the petitioners in the writ petition, who would hereinafter be referred to as ‘Employees’ for the purpose of convenience and clarity. The appeals in W.A.Nos.5783 and 5784 of 2001 are filed by the second respondent in the writ petition, who would hereinafter be referred to as ‘Employer’. 2. In a petition where the ‘Employees’ had prayed for parity in pay scales, the learned Single Judge though granted the relief, the same is with effect from 1-4-1996. The ‘Employees’ are in appeal praying that the same be granted from the year 1985. On the other hand the ‘Employer’ is assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in its entirety as according to them the ‘Employees’ are not entitled to the relief in the present fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. The petitioners have presented this public interest petition and have assailed the notification dated 26.12.2009 issued by the first, respondent by impugning the same at Annexure-J to the petition insofar as it declares Yadgir town as the head quarters of the new district consisting of the area of Yadgir, Shahapur and Shorapur Taluks. The petitioners have also sought for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the first respondent to declare Shahapur town as the headquarters of the new district and utilise the existing facilities and the government buildings which is presently with the second respondent.3. The brief facts are that the newly formed Yadgir district was carved out of Gulbarga district by including Yadgir, Shahapur and Shorapur Taluks as part of Yadgir district. Yadgir was also chosen as the new headquarter and the notification dated 26.12.2009 as at Annexure-J came to be issued. Though several details with regard to the manner in which the said decision was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. The petitioner has called into question, the endorsement, dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure-E) intimating the petitioner that the allotment proceedings are not in accordance with law and that therefore the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagsra Palike (for short 'the B.B.M.P') has resolved to refund the allotment consideration with 18% interest thereon. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus to the B.B.M.P to allot a site measuring 30' X 40' to him n the land at Sy.Nos.38/1 and 39/1 of Valagerahalli.2. The facts of the case in brief are that Kengeri Town Municipal Council (for short 'the T.M.C) issued the Notification, dated 20.02.1985 calling for the applications from the desirous parties for the allotment of sites. The petitioner submitted the application on 05.02.1986 for allotment of the site measuring 30' X 40'. He had paid 1,500/- towards EMD at the time of submitting the application. Originally the allotment consideration was 15,000/-; later it was raised to 25,000/-. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Petitioner, a practising Advocate and former Mayor of Bangalore City Corporation, has filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to:(i) direct the respondents to implement the Dr. K. Kasturirangan Expert Committee Report submitted in March 2008 forthwith and hold elections to BBMP accordingly as per Annexure-B in the month of March, 2008.(ii) grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant with costs.2. According to petitioner, the Government of Karnataka by notification in Government Order No. UDD 86 ML 2006(4) Bangalore dated 02.11.2006, appointed an Expert Committee headed by Dr. K. Kasturirangan and other four members to-(i) review the administration structures and legal frame work currently operating within Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR); (ii) organize the Institutional Frame Work and to recommend alternative governance having regard to the tenets of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Bill;(iii) examine and sug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2009Kant119; ILR2009KAR1207; 2009(4)KarLJ193
BY GOPALA GOWDA, J:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 227 - Orders passed under - Whether appeal would lie there against under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act in respect of interlocutor}' orders passed in the Original Suit proceedings by the Civil Courts - HELD, As the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 CPC is taken away by amending the same and in the light of the powers conferred under Sections 9(xii)(a) and (b) and Section 10(iva) of the Act, I am of the opinion that right of appeal is available to a litigant against the orders passed by the single judge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the writ petitions filed against the judgments, awards and orders/interlocutory orders of Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, quasi Judicial Tribunals/Authorities, Family Courts and Civil Courts in their respective proceedings and the said power is expressly conferred and the same is restricted to the orders, judgments etc., passed under original jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2009]150CompCas728(Kar); 2009(9)KarLJ8
ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. The petitioner in this case is M/s. Nokia Siemens Network India Private Limited, a transferor company seeking sanction of amalgamation with M/s Nokia Siemens Networks Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as a transferee company) so as to make the same binding on all the share holders, secured and unsecured creditors of the transferor as well as the transferee company. Annexure-A is the proposed scheme of amalgamation.2. According to the petitioner company, it was incorporated on 17.12.1993 under the provisions of the Companies Act having its registered office at 10th floor Kaheja Towers 26/27, M.G. Road, Bangalore-1. The main objects of the transferor company as set out in Annexure-B is to design, develop, manufacture and trade in computer software such as software data products and allied hardware for telecommunication and other industries. The authorized share of the transferee company is Rs. 250,000,000/- divided into 25,000,000 equity shares of Rs. 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR1356; 2009(3)KCCRSN99; 2009(4)AIRKarR367
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2nd September, 2006 as per Annexure-A and the order dated 19th December 2006, as per Annexure-B and for a declaration that no permission is required either from the Central Government or the State Government for mining in an area less than 5 Hectares.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of mining. It was granted a mining lease dated 13th June, 2005 for a period of 20 years for an extent of 12.10 acres in Sy. No. 121 of Hogrehalli village, Kadur Taluk, Birur Hobli, Chikamagalur District vide ML No. 2491. Annexure-C is the copy of the mining lease. The petitioner is the owner of the property in respect of which the mining lease was granted. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board by their letter dated 8th August, 2005 gave their consent for the establishment of mining industry. Annexure-D is the copy of the said letter. The Deputy Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR365
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The appellants are the writ petitioners in W.P. 10647/06 where in by proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 12-7-06 the representation for sale of the quarters under their occupation was rejected and a direction given to vacate the respective quarters within 15 days from 12-7-06, was confirmed by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st June, 2008.2. In brief, the petitioners are the retired Group-D employees of Public Works Department and they were allotted individual quarters for their occupation during their service, but even after superannuation they continued in occupation of the respective quarters and represented to the Government to convey the respective quarters on lease-cum-sale basis. Since the Government proposed to evict the petitioners from the respective quarters in July 1997, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 24482-86/1997 and 20499/1997 and this Court by an order dated 22nd July, 1999 in W.P. No. 20499/97 directed the ...
Tag this Judgment!