Mangaluru’s first business hotel Moti Mahal to be shut down by end of April
Mangaluru: Amid prolonged land dispute, Mangaluru's first business hotel, Moti Mahal, is now on the verge of closure and must be handed over to its rightful landowners by the end of April.
As per the Supreme Court’s verdict, Hotel Moti Mahal is to be handed over to the landowners in its current state. Additionally, a compensation of Rs. 3 crore is to be paid to them.
The land on which Hotel Moti Mahal stands located next to Milagres Church in Hampankatta is presently owned by St. Anthony’s Old Age Home, situated in Jeppu.
The legal battle, which began years ago between the local church’s administrative committee and the hotel’s proprietors, has finally reached its logical conclusion. The original landowners have emerged victorious in the prolonged legal conflict.
Hotel Moti Mahal was established in 1966 by renowned Mangalorean businessman A.J. Shetty in Hampankatta, the heart of the city.
At the time of its inception, Moti Mahal was the first hotel in Mangaluru to offer luxury amenities such as a gym and a swimming pool. It quickly became a prominent name with its popular Mangala Multi-Cuisine Restaurant, Madhuvan Veg Restaurant, Mehfil Bar, Taichin Chinese Restaurant, Moti Sweets section, and a swimming pool named Sheetal. The hotel earned its reputation as the first true business and luxury hotel in the city.
With 90 rooms and a grand hall accommodating up to 1,000 people, Moti Mahal mirrored the evolving urban lifestyle of Mangaluru. Over the past six decades, it grew beyond a hotel to become a major landmark of the city.
From family gatherings to business meetings, auspicious ceremonies to celebratory parties, Moti Mahal served as the go-to venue for all kinds of events. Its vegetarian restaurant, in particular, has retained its reputation over the years.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Opposition plans to move fresh notice seeking removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar
New Delhi (PTI): Undeterred by the rejection of their earlier notices, opposition parties are planning a fresh move to seek the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, sources said on Saturday.
According to highly placed sources, leaders from several opposition parties are in talks, and at least five senior MPs from different parties -- including the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the DMK -- are working on drafting a new notice to initiate removal proceedings.
It has, however, not yet been decided which House the notice would be moved in, or whether it would be introduced in both Houses as was done last time, the source added.
Buoyed by the defeat of The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha on Friday, opposition leaders are aiming to secure more MPs' signatures on the notice and are looking at garnering at least 200, the source said.
"We want to make a statement. We first need to prove that the number last time was underestimated," the source added.
In its earlier notices, the opposition had accused CEC Kumar of a "failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity" and of acting under the "thumb of the executive".
The notices levelled sweeping charges against the CEC, alleging “proved misbehaviour” on grounds including a compromised and executive-influenced appointment, partisan functioning -- such as the alleged “graded response” doctrine targeting opposition leaders -- obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, and erosion of transparency through refusal to share data and materials.
They further accused him of enabling large-scale disenfranchisement via Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises in Bihar and elsewhere, defying or delaying compliance with Supreme Court directions, and acting in alignment with the political executive, thereby undermining the independence of the Election Commission.
However, in almost similar responses, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan rejected the notices, holding that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for removal.
They reasoned that appointment-related issues or prior government service do not constitute misconduct; differences in public statements or administrative decisions lack evidence of wilful abuse of authority; and actions like data-sharing or electoral roll revisions fall within the commission’s constitutional mandate and are subject to judicial review.
The responses also stressed that many issues cited were either speculative, politically interpretative, or sub judice, and that removal proceedings cannot be based on disagreement or perceived political consequences but require clear, specific, and provable misconduct, which, they concluded, was absent in this case.
