Karnataka Court November 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shree Mukambika Finance Vs. N. Shankaranarayana Acharya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR536; 1995(4)KarLJ603
Mirdhe, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the trial Court against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1989 passed by the Civil Judge and Additional C.J.M., Puttur in S.C.No. 22 of 1989 dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2385.20. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent remained absent at the time of hearing of this Petition.2. Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2385.20 on the averments that defendant No. 1 took the loan of Rs. 3000/- from the petitioner for his business on 28.1.1986 after executing an On Demand Promissory Note agreeing to pay the said amount with interest at 21% per annum and the defendants 2 & 3 had acted as co-obligates and they did not discharge the debt of the petitioner, hence the suit. The defendant No. 1 filed a written statement. Defendants 2 & 3 adopted the written statement of defendant No. 1. The m...
Mahadevaiah Vs. Scheduled Caste (Harijan) House Building Co-operative ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1332; 1995(5)KarLJ96
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J1. This application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The office has reported that the Appeal is barred by time by 16 days. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 28.3.1994. It appears that the application for copy of the judgment and decree had been moved on July 12, 1994. The office report prima facie is correct that the Appeal is barred by 16 days. I am surprised to find that in the Memo of Appeal it has been written 'this appeal has been filed within time' under the signature of the Counsel for the appellant. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been again stated in para '3 'I submit that I have filed the R.F.A. in time.' According to him, there is no delay in approaching this Court. However, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay, if any, in preferring this RFA, and that he has got an excellent case on merits, and according to the deponent, the order passed by the Cou...
K.S.R.T.C. Vs. John D'souza
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR405; 1995(2)KarLJ305
ORDER1. This petition raises an interesting question of law concerning Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The subsidiary point that has been raised which also falls for determination is the question as to whether in a case where the High Court finds that the Tribunal has gone legally wrong, whether it is incumbent upon the High Court to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. An elaborate narration of the facts is not very necessary because the issues basically concern points of law. The petition before me has been presented by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and it assails an award dated December 7, 1993 passed by the presiding Officer' Labour Court Bangalore in relation to the case of dismissed Conductor, who is the respondent to this proceeding. On December 14, 1986 the respondent was the conductor of Bus No. MYF 919 plying between Cannanore and Bangalore. It is alleged that this vehicle came to be checked by the Vigilance Staff of the Corpo...
Boskails Westminster Deadging by Rosmolenwag Vs. New Mangalore Port Tr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR224; 1994(5)KarLJ473
ORDERRaveendran, J 1. This Writ Petition relates to the award of a Civil Engineering Contract known as 'CONTRACT C-3 : Capital Dredging' by New Mangalore Port Trust (the first Respondent herein, also referred to as NMPT) to HAM DREDGING Co., on 23.9.1994. The Trustees of the first respondent have passed Resolution No. 43 dated 23.9.1994 according approval to accept the recommendations of its Tender Committee and approve the award of the Contract C-3 Capital Dredging, under Section 34(1) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 in favour of M/S HAM DREDGING CO., at the lowest evaluated cost of Rs. 106,93,78,780/- (based on 70% of the contract amount payable in Foreign Currency calculated at Rs. 1=0.06 DFI to be firmed up in Indian Rupees as on the date of issue of letter of Acceptance based on the Exchange Rates to be notified by the State Bank of India, Mangalore, on that date, any increase or decrease in cost due to Statutory change in Rupee value against US Dollars, by the Government of In...
Diploma Engineers Working in Karnataka Power Corporation Vs. Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR416; 1994(5)KarLJ283
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. These two Petitions are presented by the Karnataka Power Corporation Diploma Engineers' Association, Briefly stated, they have projected the grievance that, they belong to a class of employees of the Corporation who have Engineering qualifications namely, Diploma in Engineering and that they are categorised in the corporate cadre as Junior Engineers. They have further stated that, there is a more or less similar category of employees who possess the Graduate engineering qualification and who are designated as Assistant Engineers. The present dispute is confined to the Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers categories which I shall briefly refer to as JEs and AEs respectively.2. The grievance projected in the two Petitions may be conveniently summarised under two heads; the first of them concerns, the payment by the Corporation of a component that is, the special pay which admittedly is admissible to the AEs and not to the JEs, If one may look at the hierarchy set...
V.B. Naidu Vs. Director-general, Central Power Research Institute
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)KarLJ390; (1996)ILLJ544Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. The petitioner is an ex- employee of the Central Research Institute which is the first respondent to this Petition. In the year 1985 the petitioner was working as a Technician Grade IV. The record indicates that in the month of April and June, 1985, the petitioner was charge- sheeted in relation to acts of misconduct, pursuant to his having been placed under suspension in the month of April, 1985. The acts of misconduct principally do not require to be elaborately set out in so far as they can be summarised under the head of gross misbehavior in relation to trade union activities. The petitioner along with several others is alleged to have spoken discourteously to the Director and had confined the senior officers in the office premises for several hours and had indulged in several other incidental acts that were construed as misconduct. The second charge sheet related to the petitioner having distributed a pamphlet wherein s...
V.B. Naidu Vs. Director General, Central Power Research Institute
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR396
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. The petitioner is an ex-employee of the Central Research Institute which is the first respondent to this Petition. In the year 1985, the petitioner was working as a Technician Grade IV. The record indicates that in the months of April & June 1985, the petitioner was charge-sheeted in relation to acts of misconduct, pursuant to his having been placed under suspension in the month of April 1985. The acts of misconduct principally do not require to be elaborately set out in so far as they can be summarised under the head of gross misbehaviour in relation to trade union activities. The petitioner along with several others is alleged to have spoken discourteously to the Director and had confined the senior officers in the office premises for several hours and had indulged in several other incidental acts that were construed as misconduct. The second charge sheet related to the petitioner having distributed a pamphlet wherein serious ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. B.M. Krishnamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR347; 1995(4)KarLJ607
Mohan Kumar, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the Union of India under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of the Immoveable Properties Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Requisitioning Act') against the award made by the Arbitrator in a proceeding for the fixation of compensation payable with respect to the land in question requisitioned under the Act.2. For the sake of convenience, as we proceed to state the facts of the case, we may also refer briefly to the statutory provisions relating to the requisitioning of a property. The said Act was enacted on 14.3.1952 to enable the Union of India to requisition/acquire immoveable property if the competent authority is of the opinion that the said property is needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose. Section 1(3) of the Act provided that the Act shall remain in force for a period of six years from the date of commencement of the Act. Section 3 thereof conferred the power to requisition the property if it 'is ...
S.D. Dandagi Vs. Secretary, Keb
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR401; 1995(1)KarLJ628
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. Heard the petitioner's learned Counsel and Mr. Sundaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel who appears on behalf of the Board. The Board has filed its reply wherein it has been pointed out that the petitioner who is at present working in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, was placed in that position by virtue of an 'incharge arrangement' on 2.2,1988. It has been clarified that the petitioner was not promoted to this post and therefore, that it does not constitute a service elevation. The petitioner has been working in that post since 2.2.1988 and it is the case of the Board that after the conclusion of the first enquiry instituted against him, wherein the petitioner has been held responsible for substantial losses to the Corporation aggregating to Rs. 22,61,155.50ps. which has been ordered to be recovered from him. That a personal punishment was also imposed on him reducing his pay by two stages permanently. Mr. Sundaraswamy states that as of now, the petitioner ha...
B.L. Shankar Vs. Chief Election Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1027; 1995(2)KarLJ408
ORDERRaveendran, J1. The first petitioner is the General Secretary of a recognised Political party and Second Petitioner is ah Independent candidate for election to the State Legislative Assembly. Both are voters in Karnataka. They seek quashing of two orders issued by the Election Commission of India (the first respondent herein) that is, Order No. 76/93/J.S.II dated 17,12.1993 and order No. 76/ES 003/94 JS II dated 31.8.1994 (Annexures A and B) containing the instructions for guidance of contesting candidates in regard to maintenance of day to day expenses as required by Section 77 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 ('Act' for short) and Rule 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 ('Rules' for short).2. As reference to the directions contained in the said orders and the reasons for issue of such directions is necessary, the relevant portions of the said two orders are extracted below;...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »