SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Kar) 333

MURALIDHARA RAO
ULHAS NATURE CURE CENTRE, BANGALORE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


MURALIDHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) W. P. 14274/ 1986 : Petitioner is a registered partnership firm; it is asserted that it is running a Nature Cure Clinic at Yamunabai Road, Madhavnagar, Bangalore. It is said that it is registered under the Companies Act and is assessed for professional tax. Its function, as claimed in the petition, is to solve health problems by nature care without drug or surgery. It has the facility of steam bath, massaging and yogas. Petitioner's grievance is as follows :"the respondents are sending Policemen regularly to the institute of the petitioner and the posting of the Policemen at the institute of the petitioner is preventing the registered patients of the petitioner from taking treatment. By illegal acts and surveillance of the respondents and their officers the business of the petitioner is affected very much and if the same is continued by the respondents, the petitioner will be forced to close down the business. The acts of the respondents violate the guaranteed fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. "again in para 'j' it is averred thus :the posting of the two policemen at the premises of the peti



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top