Karnataka Court March 1982 Judgments

Mico Employees' Association Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3474; (1987)ILLJ300Kant

ORDERBopanna, J.1. The validity of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) read with Rule 59 of the Rules framed by the State Government under the Act entered into between the fourth Respondent-Management of Motor Industries Co. Ltd., (in short the Management) and the MICO Employees Association purporting to be represented by its President - fifth respondent, viz., F. M. Khan, Member of Parliament, is challenged by petitioners 1 to 6, who are the office bearers of the MICO Employees' Association (in short the Association) represented by its General Secretary, the President, Assistant Secretary, the Executive Committee Member, the Treasurer and a Committee Member respectively.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the duly elected office-bearers of the Association and they had submitted a charter of demands to the Management for the revision of wags-structure, enhancement of dearness allowance and for providing transport facili...

G.S. Ananthaswamy Iyer and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1982CriLJ2121

ORDER1. This is a petition filed under S. 482 Criminal P.C. with a request to call for the records in C.C. 46364 of 1981 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II, Bangalore City and to set aside the order of issue of process dated 21-10-1981 passed by the learned Magistrate and to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner. 2. The case has been instituted against the petitioners on the report made by the police, alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. The facts of the case as could be seen from the first information and the charge report submitted after investigation are; on receipt of a credible information to the effect that some persons were playing game of chance at Balaji Recreation Association situated at No. 47, 1st Cross, B. V. K. Iyengar Road, Bangalore City, when the Sub-Inspector of Chickpet Police Station obtained necessary search warrant and went to the spot at about 8 p.m. h...

B.M. Venkataramanaian Vs. Inspector of Motor Vehicles and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1983Kant271

ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No. MYD 2800. He has alleged that the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle had expired on 30-9-1975. But nevertheless he continued to pay tax till 13-12-1976: that the vehicle was taken for trial after repairs by the driver on 22-2-1980. But the vehicle was seized by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles attached to the office of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, a Demand Notice had been issued for payment of Rs. 20,987.00 being arrears of tax from 1-4-1976 to 31-501980. Then the petitioner filed Writ Petitioner No. 5997/80 in this Court and by an interim order made in that petition got the vehicle released. Finally the writ petition was rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay the entire tax demanded under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Now the 1st respondent on 2-3-1982 has again seized the vehicle in question presumably under Section 11-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.2. The petitioners...

Neelavva Vs. Bhimavva and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1982Kant307; 1982(2)KarLJ157

Kulkarni, J.1. The appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated Aug. 6, 1973, made by the Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur, in O. S. No. 37 of 1967. 2. The material facts leading to the appeal are as below:- One Jakkappa had two sons, Balappa and Shivappa. Balappa predeceased Shivappa who died on March 5, 1945. Shivappa had left behind him his widow Bhimavva, Defendant-1. She took Ningappa in adoption on June 15, 1955. The plaintiff Neelavva was married to Ningappa. But their married life ended in a disaster. In Sept, 1960, Ningappa disappeared once for all never to return. He has not been heard of since then. In 1967, the plaintiff Neelavva filed a suit claiming half share in the suit properties(which) were the joint family properties. 3. Defendant-1 who is the mother of Ningappa and defendant-2 who is the father of defendant-1 together filed a written statement resisting the suit contending inter alia that S. Nos. 223, 225 and 408 did not belong to the pla...

Gulappa Gurusangappa Mamani Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Haveri and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1982(2)KarLJ206

ORDER1. In this revision, the petitioner who is party No. 1 in 133, Cr.P.C. proceedings instituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haveri, in Case No. MAG SR 2/81-82, on the file of his Court, has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 20-6-1981 passed by him chilly-pounding machine installed by him at Badagi in Dharwad District. 2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the order under revision passed by the Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction, because having called upon the parties to appear before him on 30-6-1981, by his preliminary order, he could not have made any modification in the preliminary order without enquiring into the case as required under the law and the order under revision, therefore, is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the proceedings initiated are also liable to be quashed, the same being not in accordance with law. 3. It appears, the contention is well founded. The learned Sub-Divisional ...

Gulappa Gurusangappa Mamani Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1983CriLJ1270

ORDERM.S. Patil, J.1. In this revision, the petitioner who is party No. 1 in 133, Cr. P.C. proceedings instituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haveri, in Case No. MAG SR 2/81-82, on the file of his Court, has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 20-6-1981 passed by him restraining him from operating the chilly-pounding machine installed by him at Badagi in Dharwad District.2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the order under revision passed by the Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction, because having called upon the parties to appear before him on 30-6-1981, by his preliminary order, he could not have made any modification in the preliminary order without enquiring into the case as required under the law and the order Under revision, therefore, is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the proceedings initiated are also liable to be quashed, the same being not in accordance with law.3. It appears, the content...

Vijayadevaraj Urs Vs. G.V. Rao and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1982(2)KarLJ97; (1982)IILLJ221Kant

1. An unfortunate dispute which should not normally arise among the higher echeons of the Indian Police Service borne on the Karnataka cadre, has arisen between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to the posts of Inspector General of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'IGP') and Director General of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'Director') of the Government of Karnataka. But, this court is exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, cannot avoid determining the same, for which reason it is necessary to notice the salient facts in the first instance and, thereafter deal with the questions that arise for determination. 2. On 10-8-1946, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Superintendent of Police in the then princely State of Mysore. On the merger of the said State in the Indian Union and the formation of the new State of Mysore now called as Karnataka, under the States Reorganisation Act, the services of the petitioner stood allott...

H. Mohamed Khan and ors. Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the original defendant No. 3, challenging the judgment and decree dated March 22, 1974, made against them in O.S. No. 86 of 1969 by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City. 2. Respondent No. 1, Andhra Bank Ltd., since nationalised and now called as the Andhra Bank ('the bank'), sued defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to recover a sum of Rs. 1,63,300 on the following allegations. 3. That defendant No. 1, Seth Menghraj Parasuram ('Parasuram'), was having financial accommodation with the bank under various sets of accounts. As security for the amounts advanced, he has endorsed promissory notes and other securities in favour of the bank executed in his favour by his customers. On April 4, 1966, defendant No. 2, Abdul Jabbar, executed a promissory note in favour of Parasuram along with a consideration receipt agreeing to pay on demand to him or to his order, the sum of Rs. 1,20,000 together with interest th...

B.M. Munner Vs. the Returning Officer and the Tahsildar, Town Municipa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1982Kant313

Malimath, J.1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Civil Judge at K. G. F., passed in Elec. Misc. No. 2 of 1979 dated 15-2-1982 under Section 25 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Respondent 2 has presented the election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the Town Municipal Council of Malur. The learned Civil Judge has directed by the order under appeal that the ballot papers of the constituency in question should be recounted in the presence of the parties and their counsel on any convenient day fixed with the consent of the parties and that suitable directions will be issued in due course.3. The first question for consideration is whether the present appeal is maintainable. Section 27 of the Act provides that an appeal lies from the order of the election tribunal under Section 25 to the High Court within period of thirty days from the date of the order of the Tribunal excluding the time requisite for obtaining...

Harikrishna Punaroor Vs. Seaview Tourist Home, Mangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1983Kant1; ILR1982KAR772

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-10-1979 of the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in R.A. No. 18 of 1979 on his file.2. Facts involved may be stated briefly;The respondent herein filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of RS. 10,175.04 p. in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore (D.K) in O.S. No. 37 of 1979. The suit was filed invoking the summary procedure as laid down under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff, which is firm claims that that in respect of a premises situated in the City of Mangalore the defendant gives its monthly tenant, being liable to pay a monthly rent of RS. 2,500/-, under a registered lease-deed dated 23-11-1976. The plaintiff's allegations in the suit was that the defendant had committed default in the payment of rents due for the months of October to December, 1978 and January 1979 and therefore, he was liable to pay the said sum of RS. 10,000/- plus interest at 12% f...