Karnataka Court July 1991 Judgments
Regional P.F. Commissioner, Bangalore Vs. Harihar Polyfibres
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2895; 1992(1)KarLJ85; (1992)IILLJ761Kant
S. Mohan, C.J.1. The short facts are as follows : 33 employees working in Harihar Polyfibres, Kumarapatnam, were contributing to Birla Brothers Provident Fund. This contribution was prior to January 1, 1975. It was at that period the unit came under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The schemes framed earlier required contribution at the rate of 10 per cent. After the establishment was notified under the Act by order dated January 1, 1975, all the employees who were earlier contributing to Birla Brothers Provident Fund were taken to the statutory provident fund. Accordingly, their contributions which were required at the rate of 10 per cent. to Birla Brothers Provident Fund come to be reduced to the statutory minimum of 8 per cent. from January 1, 1975, unilaterally. Therefore, the question arose whether the employers viz., Harihar Polyfibres, were within their powers to reduce the existing hig...
Tag this Judgment!Shivakumaraswamy Vs. Lingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3991
ORDERShyamsundar, J. 1. Clearly the Court has committed a faux pas in passing the impugned order under which it permits the petitioner to withdraw the suit while refusing the prayer to renew the suit on the same cause of action. The order in question was made at the behest of the plaintiff who is the petitioner in this case pursuant to an application made under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. There were in all five parties to the suit. Plaintiff-1 is the petitioner herein. Plaintiff-2 is respondent- 4. Defendant-1 is the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 2 and 3. The suit was for partition of several properties. 2. Out of the suit properties, one item was claimed to be the self acquisition of the father in which stand he received support from the second respondent who is the other son. The suit was pending for some time. The plaintiff later thought it fit not to antagonise his father who ...
Tag this Judgment!Manche Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3830; 1992(1)KarLJ323
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is as follows:'Whether the authority under the Land Grant Rules is competent to confer occupancy rights on the lessee before the expiry of the period of lease and if so, whether Rule 43-J is attracted?'To appreciate this question of law, it is necessary to refer to certain salient features of the case.2. It is undisputed that one acre of land in Sy. No. 95 of Heggur village, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District, which was a Government land, was leased in favour of Nanjundaiah - the fourth respondent herein, under proceedings No. LCR 8/59-60 dated 3-11-1959 subject to certain conditions. A copy of the lease has been produced at Annexure-A. The lease was for a period of five years commencing from June, 1960. Although the sentence relating to period of lease is missing in Annexure-A, in the Government records produced by Sri Siddagangaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, there is a specific word i...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C. Vs. M.S. Adinarayana Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2892; 1991(3)KarLJ66
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. It has been our unfortunate experience whenever the Corporation is beset with an adverse award, it immediately comes up by way of Writ Petition. This may be, because of the might of the Corporation. But title does it realise the prejudice caused, sometimes immense prejudice caused, to the workman for two reasons: (1) Stay is obtained keeping at Bay the award; and (2) It takes long number of years for a final adjudication in the matter. Therefore, it would be proper and advisable before the Corporation embarks upon such an attempt to question the correctness of the award before this Court, to have a detailed examination of the case. In other words, it should not, as a matter of course, come up to this Court and invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case on hand affords a typical illustration for the same.2. The first respondent was a Conductor, in the service of the Appellant's Corporation, who was subjected to the following delin...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. H.M. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. Director, Jayadeva Institute of Cardiol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2883; 1991(3)KarLJ410
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal arises out of Writ Petition No. 6034 of 1991. We will refer to the parties as described in the Writ Appeal because W.P.No. 6034 of 1991 came to be dealt with along with W.P.No. 6928 of 1991 by our learned brother Justice Shivaraj Patil on 19th July 1991.2. The appellant passed his M.B.B.S. degree from Gulbarga University in the year -1984. Thereafter he joined as resident of Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, Respondent No. 1. Then he appeared for the examination of the Certificate of Diplomate of National Board in General Surgery (Discipline) in the year 1990. Having passed the above examination, the appellant applied for admission for M.Ch. in Cardio Thoracic Surgery for the year 1991- 92 under the first respondent. On 23-1-1991, he was selected. Consequent to that selection, he was admitted to the said course by remitting necessary fees. Thereafter, he started attending classes.3. On 9th January 1991, the first respondent wrote to the Bangalore Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Reddy Vs. Kashinath Rao Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3901; 1992(1)KarLJ392
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. This Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 1-6-1987 passed by the VIIth Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City in S.C. No. 2514 of 1985. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, briefly stated, are as under: 2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the instant petitioner-defendant praying for a decree in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, the same being the advance paid by him to the defendant at the time of his entry in the petition premises as a lessee. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was a tenant of the defendant for the period from 1-11-1979 to 31-1-1984. According to him, he was paying a rent of Rs. 600/- p.m. from 1-11-1979 to 31-1-1982 and thereafter, defendant gave him one more room which was constructed by him. According to him, he paid different amounts as detailed in the plaint in all amounting to Rs. 43,200/-. Plaintiff ceased to be a tenant from 1-2-1984. He demanded the amount of Rs. 5,000/- paid by h...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. K. Gangadhar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant163; 1992(1)KarLJ497
ORDER1. This is a petition under S. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code') seeking withdrawal of O.S. No, 146/89 pending in the Court the Civil Judge, Chikmagalur, and to retransfer the same to the Court of the Civil Judge, Puttur, for trial and disposal in accordance with law. Sri G. IX Rao, working as Officer in the Zonal Office of the petitioner-Bank, has filed his affidavit in support of the prayer.2. Sri B. R. Aswatharam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 5, are heard. Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 are served, but are unrepresented.3. The matter arises in this way: The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein are plaintiff and defendants Nos. ! to 5 in the suit sought to be transferred. They would be referred to as such in the course of this order.4. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 38/88 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Puttur in Dakshina Kannada District, seeking a decree against defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. K. Gangadhar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4039
ORDERNavadgi, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code') seeking withdrawal of O.S. No. 146/1989 pending in the Court the Civil Judge, Chikmagalur, and to re-transfer the same to the Court of the Civil Judge, Puttur, for trial and disposal in accordance with law. Sri G.D. Rao, working as Officer in the Zonal Office of the petitioner Bank, has filed his affidavit in support of the prayer.2. Sri B.R. Aswatharam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 5, are heard. Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 are served, but are unrepresented.3. The matter arises in this way: The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein are plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 in the suit sought to be transferred. They would be referred to as such in the course of this order.4. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 38/1988 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Puttur in Dakshina Kannada District, seeking a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Kempamma Vs. Kalamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant282; ILR1992KAR3007; 1991(4)KarLJ119
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree in R.A. No. 20 of 1979 dated 18-12-1980 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tiptur.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 190 of 1973 on the file of the Addl. Munsif, J MFC, Tiptur. She has filed the said suit for declaration of title and possession against six defendants in respect of Items 1 to 3 consisted of agricultural lands and Item No. 4 a house bearing Kaneshmari No. 29.3. The case made out by the appellant, in brief, are as follows :That the Suit schedule properties belong to her father Chinnegowda who has executed a registeredd Will In her favour on 6-4-1925. After the death of Chinnegowda, she has become the owner and paying the land revenue to the properties. The 5th defendant Honnegowda who is her son was managing the suit schedule properties on her behalf in a fiduciary capacity and his name has been entered in the Revenue Records.4. The first respondent filed an Original Suit in No. 176 of 1962 against the 5t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Billigowda Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4369
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Sri. Ananthamurthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner who took me through the impugned order Annexure-A and B urged two points:-(1) The Deputy Commissioner/Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal without hearing the appellant and it is therefore vitiated.(2) According to Rule 5, the Deputy Commissioner could have dismissed the Appeal for default of the appellant under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. There was no reason why the Deputy Commissioner should dispose of the appeal on merits.2. The learned Counsel placed reliance upon a Decision rendered by this Court in BOREGOWDA v. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER : ILR1990KAR489 and submitted that if the appellant was absent when the case was called, the Deputy Commissioner may dismiss the appeal for default as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner instead of doing so, dismissed the appeal on merits. Hence, his order...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »