Latest Cases

G. Channarayappa and Others Vs. M/S Lakshmi Mallables and Another

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2011(4)KantLJ657; 2011ILR(Kar)3141; 2011(4)KCCR3961

.....is the 5th defendant in the suit/s. for convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the suit/s. 2. brief facts of the case are: (i) the plaintiff is an allottee of sites bearing nos.169, 170, 171, 189, 190, 191 and 198 situated at nagarabhavi ii stage layout, formed in sy.no.103 of nagarabhavi village, bangalore north taluk, by the 5th defendant/bangalore development authority (bda). the possession of the said sites were delivered by the bda to the plaintiff on 07.11.2007 and the sale deeds were executed. the katha of the sites has been registered in the name of the plaintiff. (ii) the land bearing sy.no.103, measuring 2 acres, situated at nagarabhavi village, which belonged to the defendants 1 to 4 was acquired by the government, pursuant to a preliminary notification dated 15.07.1982 and a final declaration dated 16.05.1985. an award was passed on 20.05.2002. (iii) defendants 1 to 4 filed wp 13028/2007 challenging the acquisition of the said property. the writ petition was allowed by an order dated 20.03.2009. questioning the said order, the plaintiff has filed wa 1522/2009. the 5th defendant/bda has filed wa 1490/2009. in wa.....

Bhadre Gowda and Others Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2012(2)KCCR1529

.....on 01.10.1962. having succeeded in getting the aforesaid sale declared as void, the grant land came to be restored back to him. fully aware of the fact that he could not have sold the grant land, he sold it yet again to somegowda on 03.02.1992. cheluvaiah again succeeded in getting the second sale made by him set aside, so as to retrieve the land. the question that we wish to determine is, whether having got the sale invoked, the original grantee is entitled to retain the consideration amount received by him?. we are satisfied, that repeated sales at the hand of the original grantee constitutes the offence of cheating under the section 420 of the indian penal code 1860. a person who cheats, definitely not entitled to seek restoration of the grant land and retain the consideration received by him by sale thereof. it is therefore, that we desire the to hereby grant liberty to the appellants to recover the sale consideration paid by somegowda to cheluvaiah on 03.02.1992 as the grant land had been restored to cheluvaiah (now his legal heirs). the other alternative, as we have concluded hereinabove, is not available to the appellants in view of the section 4 of the ptcl act......

A.M. Sharath Chandra and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep by Its Pri ...

Court : Karnataka

.....notification and withdrawal notification, it is only name of father of seventh respondent also figures etc., and therefore no need for this court to interfere with the impugned order etc.,. 6. it is a fact that once any party goes through the proceedings before the assistant commissioner in an appeal under section 136(2) of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964, the aggrieved person is required to approach a civil court for declaration of rights etc., and not to keep petitioning further either to the deputy commissioner or to this court. 7. it is not necessary for this court to pronounce upon the merits of the claims, but suffice to observe that it is open to the aggrieved person to approach civil court, seek for suitable declaration made good through right, title and interest to the subject land and work out elsewhere in accordance with law. 8. without prejudice, these writ petitions are dismissed as one not warranting interference under article 227 of the constitution of india. 9. in view of dismissal of the main writ petitions itself, misc. w. 3212 of 2011 for interim order does not survive for consideration, hence dismissed.

V.S. Satheesan Vs. Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

.....major and more than 28 years of age. since the deceased was unmarried therefore his mother has been sanctioned family pension as admissible under rules. according to them the mother of the deceased is the only dependant and is getting family pension approximately rs.7000/- per month and at the time of death of the deceased the applicant become major and about 28 years of age. they further submitted that the scheme of compassionate appointment is to grant appointment to a dependent family member of a government servant dying in harness/retired on medical grounds leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood to relieve the family from financial destitution. it is also submitted that the administration constituted a committee for considering compassionate appointments in the respondents department. they stated that the application submitted by the applicant alongwith others were considered thrice during the relevant period and the vacancy earmarked was filled up by giving appointment to the most deserving candidate as decided by the committee. they further submitted that there was no delay on the part of the respondents in considering the request of the.....

A. Janardhana Naik Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research Represe ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

.....issued by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the applicant. 2 the brief facts of the case are as follows. according to the applicant, while working as upper division clerk as also honorary secretary, cpcri employees co-operative society during the period from dec. 2004 to may 2007 he was servecd with a show cause notice dated 17.8.2007 (annx.a1) alleging to have diverted a sum of rs.6,28,558/- from cpcri to cpcri employees cooperative society. on receiving the show cause notice the applicant explained his position by annx.a2. not satisfied with the reply filed by the applicant charge memo was served to initiate inquiry under rule 14 of the ccs(cca) rules 1965. the applicant submitted his written statement denying the charges levelled against him. the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report dated 3.7.2008 to the disciplinary authority. inquiry officer (i.o for short) concluded in the inquiry report that on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence presented during the inquiry it is undoubtedly proved that the applicant is guilty of the two charges framed against him. the applicant was served.....

V.E Jossie Mcm(Ae) and Others

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

.....to include house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance, travelling allowance etc and all other admissible in conformity with section 59 of the factories act, 1948 for the purpose of calculating overtime allowance. " 2. the first, second and third applicants are employees and the fourth and fifth applicants are office bearers of registered and recognized unions representing various categories of employees in the establishment of the first respondent. the applicants have averred that all along they have received overtime allowance which was computed by including all allowances like house rent allowance (hra), city compensatory allowance (cca), transport allowance (ta), small family norm allowance (sfa) etc. this has done under the provisions of rule 59(2) of factories act, 1948. while so, the second respondent issued annexure a-1 impugned order dated 23.07.2009, which instructed the first respondent to exclude hra, ta and sfa for the purpose of computing the overtime allowance under the factories act, 1948. the applicants affirm that these instructions are contrary to the sub-section 2 of section 59 of the factories act. the said provision has been interpreted by the courts.....

Sojan Paulose Vs. the Chairman Cum Managing Director Bharat Sanchar Ni ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

.....paid terminal benefits and she is getting family pension there is no ground to deny the appointment on compassionate ground as terminal benefits do not substitute for compassionate appointment. undisputedly the widow has to look after her two school going sons at the time of death of her husband. thereafter it was diagnosed that the widow is a heart patient and needs health care. the liability of school education and medical expenses cannot be overlooked while considering the case of the applicant. 6 in the facts and circumstances of this case and settled legal position, we are of the view that it is just and proper to direct the first respondent to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. no order as to costs.

Advance Finstock Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Securities and Exchange Boar ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

per: justice n.k. sodhi, presiding officer (oral) after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this tribunal in appeal no. 98 of 2010 (mr. nimesh chitalia vs. securities and exchange board of india) decided on 8.9.2010. we order accordingly. no costs.

Pradeep Kumar Bansal Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

.....could initiate proceedings under chapter via of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 for the imposition of a monetary penalty. proceedings under section 12a read with the enquiry regulations framed by the board is one set of actions which the board can initiate and proceedings under chapter via of the act which are independent could be initiated for imposing a monetary penalty. this is the scheme of the act. we cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. since the impugned order has not been challenged on any other ground, we cannot but uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal which we hereby do with no order as to costs.

Richtone Fintrade and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchang ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

per: justice n.k. sodhi, presiding officer (oral) after arguing the case for some time the learned counsel for the appellant prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the appeal. dismissed as withdrawn.