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.
V. Venkatesh Vs. Management, Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR175
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. Rule. By consent of the parties, matter taken up for hearing.2. It is seldom that the Court will interfere in a case relating to a transfer unless it is visibly demonstrated that the order is punitive or more importantly that the case involves malafides, vindictiveness or gross abuse of authority. The law takes note of the fact that for administrative reasons it may be necessary to post an employee at different work station. Undoubtedly such movement does result in a degree of dislocation and difficulty and it is therefore that certain well defined guidelines have emerged whereby it is essential that the transfer should be demonstrated to have been undertaken for an administrative exigency and in the public interest and conversely, that the order is not motivated nor can it be assailed on the grounds of malafides. The Courts, particularly in exercise of Writ jurisdiction were hitherto extremely slow in matters of interference wit...
K.N. Hanumantharayappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3737; 1995(4)KarLJ686
ORDERShivaprakash, J1. Sri T.N. Arakeshwara, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of construction of Theetha Reservoir and a certain amount was awarded by way of compensation.2. It appears, subsequently, other lands belonging to third parties were also acquired for the same purpose and not satisfied with the award, the owners of the said lands sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Civil Court by its award dated 24.7.1989 in LAC No. 22/82 modified the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced the compensation. As against the said award of the Reference Court it appears, Appeal was preferred to this Court in M.F.A.Nos. 95 and 96/90. The said Appeals were dismissed by this Court on 20th November, 1991.3. The Question that arises for Consideration is whether the date of the award of the Reference Court is relevant or whether the date of the dismissal of the Appe...
Gavi Sidde Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR113; 1994(5)KarLJ253
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. In this application, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.1994 of the State Government (Annexure-C) by which the grant of land to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Survey No. 110 of Gudigenahally village has been cancelled on the ground that the same was transferred by the grantee in favour of the Petitioner much within ten years of the prescribed non-alienation period.2. The land in question was granted to one Dyavappa by the Deputy Commissioner under his order dated 10.1.1957 on an upset price of Rs. 25/- per acre for agricultural purposes. Saguvali Chit was issued to the grantee on 29.1.1957 subject to the condition of non-alienation of the granted land for a period of ten years from the date of taking over of the possession. But the said grantee sold the land to the father of the petitioner on 10.12.1964 under a registered deed thereby violating the non-alienation clause. As such, Government initiated proceedings for cancelling the grant by is...
Sri Kasi Viswanatha Trust Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR473
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. Private Educational Institutions are a Nation wide phenomenon. Even though such Institutions have come up practically in all the States in the Country, yet in the State of Karnataka they appear to have flourished the most. While some of these Institutions are indeed doing a commendable job in supplementing the State's endeavour to spread education and literacy both in professional and technical field; there has been a mushroom growth of a much larger number of such Institutions which are neither recognised nor have the necessary infrastructure and the wherewithal to offer the right type of facilities and conditions required for the courses being offered by them. The result is that these unauthorised and unrecognised Institutions have year after year succeeded in attracting the gullible to their portals, in large numbers, who would realise only after they had ended up paying heavy amounts, on account of capitation and other fees, that they had been taken for a rid...
Siddharth Kejriwal Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: [1997]90CompCas496(Kar)
Venkataraman, J. 1. This petition is filed by accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 in C.C. No. 189 of 1990 on the file of the Special Court (Economic Offences), Metropolitan Areas and District Court of Bangalore, under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings initiated against them on the complaint of the respondent, the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, for offences under section 85(a) and (g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act', for short). 2. The respondent in the complaint, a copy of which is produced at annexure 'D', has alleged that K.R. Mills at Mysore is a 'factory' as defined under section 2(12) of the Act, that the eight accused persons including the present petitioners are the principal employers of the said factory as defined in section 2(17) of the Act, that under section 40(1) of the Act read with regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, every principal employer of a...
Siddharth Kejriwal Vs. Regional Director, Esi Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR471]; ILR1994KAR3484; 1995(1)KarLJ194; (1995)ILLJ734Kant
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. This Petition is field by accused - 1, 3, 5 and 6 in C. C. No. 189/90 on the file of the Special Court (Economic Offences) Metropolitan Areas and District Court of Bangalore, under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings initiated against them on the complaint of the respondent, the Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation for offences under Sections 85(a) and (g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short).2. The respondent in the complaint, copy of which is produced at Annexure-D, has alleged that M/s. K. R. Mills at Mysore is a factory as defined under Section 2(12) of the Act, that the eight accused persons including the present petitioners are the principal employers of the said factory as defined in Section 2(17) of the Act, that under Section 40(1) of the Act read with Regulation 26 of the E. S. I. (General) Regulations, every principal employer of a factory covered under the Act is required to pay contrib...
B.G. Karikannanavar Vs. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)KarLJ672; (1995)IILLJ982Kant
ORDER1. I have heard the petitioner's learned counsel and I also directed Smt. Renuka to take notice on behalf of the respondent- corporation. 2. The petitioner has assailed the correctness of an award which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. The respondent-corporation had imposed the extra penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. It was alleged against him that he had been found guilty of serious misconduct in so far as he had not issued tickets to as many as fifteen passengers from whom he had collected fare and that in the case of three others, he had neither collected fare nor issued the tickets. The corporation has instituted certain disciplinary proceedings and after consideration of the entire record the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority after considering the gravity of the charges as also the petitioner's back-ground as admittedly he had been found guilty or instances of misconduct in the past, took the d...
Doddakka Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3453; 1995(1)KarLJ265
ORDERBharuka, J.1. Heard. By the impugned order - Annexure-E, the respondent -Assistant Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Revenue inspector, Kora Hobli in MR. 25/89-90 by which the kath'a of Sy.No. 151P was changed in favour of the petitioner. The reason given by the Appellate Authority for taking the said view is that katha was changed on the basis of Panchayath Paikhath executed during 1968 by which the property is said to have fallen to the share of the petitioner. But, as claimed the petitioner had subsequently executed a Registered Relinquishment Deed dated 19.1.1990 relinquishing her right in the land in question.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on two grounds viz., (i) the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore the same could not have been entertained without condonation of delay and (ii) the alleged deed of relinquishment is a concocted document and as such should not have been taken note of.3. Learned Counsel ...
Beerappa Ganapu Gowda Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3438; 1995(4)KarLJ690
G.T. Nanavati, C.J.1. Certain lands came to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of constructing a Bus Stand at Gokarna. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 29-3-1992 and was published in the Gazette on 16-4-1992. It was also published in two local daily newspapers on 3rd and 4th April 1992. Individual notices were served on the land holders on 8th May 1992 and a public notice was also affixed at the Chavdi on 18th May 1992. After holding an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and after consideration of the report by the Government, a Notification/ Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 4-5-1993. The said acquisition was challenged by the appellants and others by filing Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the acquisition was at the instance of certain Hoteliers and was actuated by mala fides and therefore, it should be regarded as bad. It was also challenged on the ground that Section 6 Notifi...
Dollaiah Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3456; 1995(1)KarLJ525
ORDERBharuka, J1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-B) dated 5th April 1991 to the extent the Tribunal has remanded the issue regarding grant of permission for conversion of the agricultural land in question for fresh disposal.2. The appellant is the owner of Survey No. 105/2C measuring 7 1/2 guntas situated in Bhogadi village. On 4.8.1989, he filed an application before the respondent-Deputy Commissioner for grant of permission to convert the said land as per the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short, the Act). The said application was rejected by an order dated 15.1.1990 by the Deputy Commissioner. The said order was subjected to an appeal to the Tribunal which was disposed of by the impugned order (Annexure-B).3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner impugned the order of the Deputy Commissioner on two grounds, namely, (1) there was a deemed grant in terms of Section 95(5) of the Act, and (ii) th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »