Reported in : ILR2003KAR1690; 2002(2)KarLJ371
.....of the act, rules, bye-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed.9. keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, let me notice the fact situation in the instant case. it is not in dispute nor it can be disputed by the respondents that petitioner had filed an application for grant of permission for erection of a hoarding on a private land on 8-11-2001. on receipt of such application, the commissioner for corporation has passed an order on 22-12-2001 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner in the aforesaid application. but the office of the commissioner has communicated the order made by the commissioner to the petitioner only on 27-12-2001.10. petitioner's learned counsel contends before this court that the order made by the commissioner on 27-12-2001 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, since the commissioner has not assigned any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. secondly, learned counsel would contend that, since the respondents have communicated to the petitioner the rejection of his application dated 8-11-2001 only on 27-12-2001, the permission sought for in the application is deemed to have been granted.11. sri muralidhar,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2002CriLJ4795; ILR2002KAR3157; 2002(2)KarLJ408
.....by the 1st respondent herein and further be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in the case in the ends of justice'.3. certain undisputed facts leading to filing of this petition may be stated as under:petitioner is accused 7 in the said c.c. no. 16457 of 1998 pending on the file of the court below. the charge-sheet for the said offences was filed by the investigating officer-c.w. 75 s.s. afsar, police inspector, h and b squad, cod, bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the i.o.'), against petitioner and eight other police officials. respondent 2-smt. soubhagya herein is the widow of one nanjunda. she was living withher husband in a tenement in nanjegowda compound, situate behind veera siddeshwara talkies, kamakshipalya, bangalore-79. during the relevant period, the petitioner was attached to mahalakshmi layout police station, bangalore, as a police constable. in march 1993, respondent 2's husband nanjunda was taken into custody by the police of mahalakshmi layout police station in crime no. 43 of 1993 that was registered for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of the ipc against unknown persons. while in police custody, he died during the night between 22nd and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2002(93)FLR387]; ILR2002KAR1069; 2002(2)KarLJ469; (2002)IILLJ235Kant
.....no power or jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings by way of departmental proceedings or by way of criminal proceedings on the very same set of facts'. the learned single judge held that 'in view of the above two decisions, the finding of the labour court in the light of the acquittal has to be confirmed'.3. the learned counsel for the appellant-management submits that merely on the basis of acquittal in a criminal case the award cannot be set aside, and to that extent the order of the learned single judge is bad in law. he further submits that departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal case are two separate proceedings and both can go on simultaneously and therefore, the order of the learned single judge on the point that once the workman is acquitted in criminal case on that ground, award has to be vitiated, is erroneous. he further relied on principles of law laid down by the supreme court in the case of nelson motis v union of india and another, : (1992)iillj744sc , wherein the larger bench had decided on the point, whether disciplinary proceedings could be continued in the face of acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case and held the plea has no substance.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2002Kant241; II(2002)DMC120; 2002(2)KarLJ460
.....can be entertained as per section 19(4) of the act only in the case of an order passed by the family court under chapter 9 of the cr. p.c., 1973. in respect of any other type of order, no revision petition lies.7. the provisions of section 19(1) of the family courts act have been given overriding effect over the provisions of the cpc. in this view of the matter, the revision petition under section 115 or even an appeal under the provisions of order 43, rule 1 of the cpc cannot be entertained.8. accordingly, this revision petition is rejected as not tenable either under section 19(4) of the family courts act or under section 19(4) of the cpc. it is open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy which is available to him if he is aggrieved by the order impugned in the present revision petition.9. the interim order stands dissolved in view of dismissal of the revision petition.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2003Kant3; ILR2002KAR3369; 2002(3)KarLJ551
.....duty or portion;(b) to (d) xxx xxx xxx'. 5. section 35 of the act prohibits questioning of instrument which has been admitted in evidence. it reads thus--'section 35. admission of instrument where not to be questioned.--where an instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission shall not, except as provided in section 58, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped'.6. before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to rules 4(1) and 6 of order 13 of the cpc which read as under.--'order 13. production, impounding and return of documents.r. 4. endorsements on documents admitted in evidence.--(i) subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely.-- (a) the number and title of the suit,(b) the name of the person producing the document,(c) the date on which it was produced, and (d) a statement of its having been so admitted, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the judge'. 'rule 6. endorsements on documents rejected as inadmissible in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2002CriLJ2107; 2002(3)KarLJ665
.....commissioner who had looked into the matter had further directed the tahsildar to look into the complaint, particularly having regard to the fact that the area was sensitive and the complaint was that the petitioner was in the habit of bringing out his gun openly in front of the house and display it threatening others and under such circumstances, the matter may require further probing.6. the petitioner being aggrieved by such directions which had been issued by the assistant commissioner to the tahsildar as per communication dated 21-8-2001, a copy of which has been produced at annexure-c, had carried the matter further to the deputy commissioner, udupi. but he did not meet with any success as the deputy commissioner agreed with the views expressed by the assistant commissioner. the deputy commissioner has also clarified that the petitioner has not suffered any adverse orders at the hands of the assistant commissioner and the direction to the tahsildar is in his administrative capacity and as such there is no need to interfere with the directions issued by the assistant commissioner. it is being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 14-9-2001, a copy of which has been.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2002Kant255
.....mind to the law on the point and has decided the applications strictly in consonance with the well settled principles of law. in this background no case is made out for interference and the crp accordingly fails and stands dismissed. the petitioner's learned advocate submitted that some other proceedings are also pending and one of his submissions was that this crp should await the outcome of those proceedings. for good reason this court has not acceded to this request. he has also submitted that this order should not affect any other proceedings. the position in law is that when the court passes an order, that order will have its inevitable consequences. 3. the crp accordingly fails and stands dismissed. no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2002Kant332; ILR2002KAR2347; 2002(4)KarLJ400
.....the trial court has miserably erred in determining the market value of the subject-matter of the suit by not taking into consideration the relevant factors and further by not holding proper enquiry in this regard as required under section 11(2) of the act. on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has taken an objection to the very maintainability of the revision petition filed under section 115 of the cpc and to substantiate his stand, he has relied on the judgment of the supreme court in the case of rathnavarmaraja v. smt. vimla , : [1961]3scr1015 .5. section 11(2) of the act reads as under:11. decision as to proper fee in courts.- (1) xxx xxx xxx. (2) any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding sub-section not later, plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. all questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. if the court decides that the subject-matter of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2002(5)KarLJ535
.....no. 181 of 1995 and 4th respondent had filed o.s. no. 124 of 1999 on the file of civil judge, shimoga, which are pending for consideration. this fact is not at all taken into consideration by the 3rd respondent and he has not given any finding to that effect. once the matter is seized by the competent civil court, the 3rd respondent ought not to have gone into the merits and passed the order directing both the parties to work out their remedies before the competent civil court. hence, he prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent may be set aside.6. per contra, the learned government pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 inter alia justified the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent on the ground that on the basis of the material records available with him, he has considered the same and passed the order and settled the matter once for all and gave direction under section 140(2). but however he is unable to persuade this court with regard to the direction issued by the deputy commissioner to the tahsildar under section 140(2) of the karnataka land revenue act to give effect to the partition dated 29-1-1972.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2003)ILLJ530Kant
.....15 and 16, 19, 11, rules 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) of the p.b. act, 1965 and the payment of bonus rules, 1975 (for short, pb rules).3. the necessary brief facts of the case are stated as hereunder for the purpose of considering the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties.the respondent issued show-cause notice to the second petitioner, dated may 15, 2000, referring to the inspection report no. 65/1999 d9, dated december 1, 1999, wherein certain irregularities were pointed out under the provisions of the p. b. act and the p.b. rules during the course of inspection of the company on december 1, 1999 and to submit their explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why legal action should not be initiated against them for the lapses noted in the inspection report referred to above. petitioners submitted their reply, dated february 25, 2000, stating that they have not contravened the statutory provisions as alleged and as such no legal action is required to be initiated against them. one more reply was submitted, by the general manager (personal) of the first petitioner to the respondent explaining the various facts, stating that they have not violated.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT