Karnataka Court December 1988 Judgments
Siddalingiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2311
ORDERRamakrishna, J. 1. Even though these cases are posted for orders, by consent of both parties, they are heard on merits and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in these two petitions have sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya made on 3-3-1987 at Annexure-D.The matter arises in this way: Boratah - 2nd respondent herein in these two petitions, a person representing Scheduled Caste. presented an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub-Division, Mandya, under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking relief under the said Act. His case was that 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 283 situate in the Village Yathagadahalli, Guttalu Hobli, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District, came to be granted in his favour under the darkest Rules (The Mysore Land Grant Rules framed under the Mysore Land Revenue ...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Anjan Setty Vs. Government of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)KarLJ95
ORDER1. The gravaman of petitioner is that non-issue of a show cause notice as per Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') vitiates the impugned order of confiscation (Annexure-B) and of the appellate order, dated 22-1-1987 (Annexure-A). 2. Tahsildar, Hiriyur, reported to Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, on 17-5-1985 the illegal hoarding of 80 bags ground-nut seeds each weighing 85 Kgs. and 20 bags of ground-nut each weighing 35 Kgs, by the petitioner, without possessing necessary licence under the Karnataka Edible Oil Seeds Licensing order, 1977 and produced the seized commodity. Deputy Commissioner made an interim order for disposal of the seized commodity, through public auction. 3. Petitioner having come to know of the order, offered his explanation on 7th June, 1981. The explanation was that he commenced the business in anticipation of the grant of licence as he had already made necessary application to the concerned authority for gran...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalah Vs. Gowdappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR962
ORDERHakeem, J1. This petition has come before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge to consider the following questions of law:1. Whether the defendants can file an application seeking temporary injunction against the plaintiffs in a suit filed by the plaintiffs? and2. Whether the decision of this Court in SUGANDA BAI v. SULU BAI AND ORS. [1975(1) KLJ 96] 1975(1) KLJ 96 places any restriction in the matter of grant of temporary injunction in favour of defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiffs?2. Petitioners were defendants and the respondents were plaintiffs in the trial Court. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to by their status in the Court below.3. The brief facts, leading to this reference are as follows:The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No. 19 of 1980 on the file of the Civil Judge at Chikkaballapur, claiming partition and separate possession of their two-thirds share in the plaint schedule properties which are alleged to be the Joint famil...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ram Mohan Vs. Labour Court, Bangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR1]; (1989)IILLJ179Kant
1. The first writ petition is presented by an ex-employee of M/s. Wockhard Private Limited questioning the legality of the award of the Labour Court, Bangalore, declining to grant the relief of reinstatement and awarding only compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The two other petitions are presented by the management questioning the legality of the order on a preliminary issue holding that the employee was a 'workman' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act and also the final award directing the payment of compensation of Rs. 63,000 in addition to the amounts already received by the workman. 2. As the three petitions arise out of the common award made in the same reference, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The workman was appointed as a Professional Service Representative ('P.S.R.' for short) in the services of Messrs Workhard Private Limited on 5th January, 1972. He was entrusted with the work of promoting sal...
Tag this Judgment!Kallayya Ningayya Hiremath and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant315; ILR1989KAR218; 1989(1)KarLJ444
ORDER1. The Petitioners are all transport operators operating stage carriage services under valid permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Raichur, (respondent 2), on various routes within the district of Raichur. Some of the petitioners are operating the stage carriages from the year 1950 onwards. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation),' with an intention of operating its stage carriage services to the exclusion of private operators including the petitioners, by a Notification No. MST. CO. PLN. RCH. 32/70 dt. 8-4-1970 published in the Official Gazette on 16-41970, proposed a scheme as per S. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to nationalise as many as 128 routes in the district of Raichur. A copy of the said notification is attached with the petition as Annexure B. The scheme was essentially a route scheme in contra distinction, to the 'Area' scheme. It provided ...
Tag this Judgment!Kapoor Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR183
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as 'Amendment Rules'), by which in Form-F of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), under the heading 'conditions of the licence,' after condition 12, the following condition has been inserted:-'12A. The licensee shall, exhibit Kannada film for a period of not less than twelve weeks in a year.' Another condition i.e., 13A in Form-G has also been incorporated; but in these petitions we are not concerned with that condition.2. The petitioners are owners or lessees of cinema theatres holding licences to exhibit cinematograph films. The petitioners have all along been exhibiting only first run pictures. The Government of Karnataka, by Notification No. HD 69 CNA dated 6-7-1979 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 7-7-1979, amended the Rules. According to the said notification, Form-...
Tag this Judgment!Pee Kay Constructions Vs. Chandrasekhar Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR241
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The Writ Appeal is by respondents 4 and 5 in the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein, the learned single Judge of this Court held that:'(a) the Corporation is not empowered to grant licences to the owners of the sites in the area in question to put up multistoreyed/multi-family dwelling units;(b) the scheme under both the CITB Act and BDA Act provides for the construction of the residential houses by the owners of the sites in question and not for exploitation of those sites for construction of multi-storeyed and multi-family apartments for a commercial purposes, residential or non-residential.(c) the schemes envisage that persons who were not allotted sites and who could not have been allotted sites would not be entitled in law to own apartments by taking advantage of the building licences which are not valid for the construction of multi-family dwelling units on the sites in question.' [Decision is reported in ILR 1988 KAR ...
Tag this Judgment!Naganagouda Vs. S. Hanumanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1244; 1989(2)KarLJ19
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In an election petition filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the election of the present revision petitioner, to the Zilla Parishad, an application - I.A.V. - was filed seeking amendment of the petition. The substance of the amendment was to state that 'the 1st respondent (i.e., the revision petitioner), his agents and followers, by corrupt practice, have caused to vote in the name of others (Impersonation) who were not in the village and moreover, one person cannot cast more than one vote which is not permissible.' This was rejected by the trial Court holding that, (i) in the original petition there was no ground regarding corrupt practice committed by the returned candidate; and the amendment, if allowed, would introduce a new cause; and (ii) a fresh petition to set aside the election on this new ground will be time barred and therefore, the plea cannot be permitted to be raised, after the period prescribed for filing the election petition.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Ub-mac Batteries Ltd. Vs. T. Rajendran and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR239]; 1989(1)KarLJ360; (1990)ILLJ134Kant
1. The petitioner has presented this petition praying for quashing the order of the Industrial tribunal, Bangalore dismissing the application presented by it under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The petition has come up for preliminary hearing. Sri G. S. Rao who has filed caveat of R-I, appeared for the 1st respondent. 3. The facts of the case in brief are these : The 1st respondent was an employee of the petitioner. He was appointed on 1st September 1975. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him on the charge of committing theft of 13.5 Kgs. of lead grids belonging to the factory. The 1st respondent was placed under suspension on 9th December 1981. In the enquiry held by the petitioner, the 1st respondent was found guilty. The management imposed the penalty of dismissal from service against him on 29th August 1983. As certain industrial dispute attracting the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act was pending before the Industrial Tribunal Bang...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR3191
ORDER1. The situation in this case is such as to place any decision making authority on the horns of dilemma. On the one hand consistency in the callousness of the petitioner to the call of duty and on the other the pressure of equity and sympathy for the irreparable loss the petitioner would suffer along with the members of his family, if the impugned order is confirmed. The task is rendered rather difficult and unenviable in striking a balance between the two. On a very careful consideration of all aspects, both human and disciplinary, I am of the view that a lesser punishment than what has been awarded would meet the ends of proportionality. 2. Ramu was appointed as a peon in 1979 in the office of the Munsiff, Kolar. By his irresponsible conduct of remaining unauthorisedly absent, he provoked disciplinary proceedings against him. From 20th November 1979 to 7th December 1979, he remained absent without authorisation from duty and after disciplinary proceedings, he was administered a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »