Karnataka Court April 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.
Sha Jetmal Vs. the General Manager, Southern Railways and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant219; ILR1994KAR1524; 1994(2)KarLJ628
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 6/90 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Shimoga. The first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal confirmed the decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge, in O.S. No. 13/83 wherein the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. A few facts briefly stated are thus:2. The plaintiff field a suit for recovery of Rs. 92,282-20 being the value of the consignment despatched. Since the same was not delivered at the intended destination the plaintiff caused a notice through his Advocate dated 22-6-1982 addressed to the General Manager, Southern Railways, Madras, The Chief Commercial Superintendent, Southern Railways, Madras and the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Jodhpur. It is also an admitted fact that the notice which was got issued by the plaintiff through his Advocate was not signed either by the party or by the Advocate. The plaintiff has got. the copy of the notice marked as Ex. P-12, whereas the defe...
irappa Vs. Management of M/S Karnataka State Construction Corporation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1429; 1995(4)KarLJ708
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Resident Engineer with the Respondent-Corporation and was put in charge of its Davanagere Unit. It appears that the Respondent took-up the work of construction of K. S. R. T. C. Bus Stand at Davanagere and while the same was in progress, a portion of its roof collapsed on the 12th April, 1985. The petitioner being in charge of the work, was placed under suspension and an enquiry started against him. It was alleged that the collapse had occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner in the discharge of his official duties resulting in loss to the Corporation to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. In response to the charge sheet served upon the petitioner he submitted his reply in which he denied that he was negligent or had committed any act subversive of discipline. 3. The explanation submitted by the petitioner not having been found satisfactory, a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him for which pu...
Joselyn Manikya Vs. Management of Hindustan Aeronantics Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1435
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.The facts giving rise to this Petition are brief and may be immediately stated. 1. The petitioner was working as a Senior sister Group-E with the Respondent. She was charged with dereliction of duty and misconduct and an enquiry was initiated against her. During the course of the enquiry, the Management produced three witnesses to prove the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce any evidence in rebuttal. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the Enquiry Officer, submitted a Report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. On receipt of the said Report, the Management served upon the petitioner a show cause notice asking her to explain as to why she should not be demoted from Group-E to Group-D, as specific punishment for misconduct proved against her. In response to the said show cause notice the petitioner submitted a Representation explaining her position. The Management, however, proceeded ahead with the imposi...
K.D.S. Williams Vs. Management of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1423; 1994(2)KarLJ499
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of an order dated 29th of September, 1982 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in Reference No. 91 holding that an order passed in proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, operates as res judicata, in any future proceedings between the parties. 2. The facts in the back-ground are brief and may be stated first : The petitioner Mr. K. D. S. Williams (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs) was working with the Respondents Company. He was dismissed from service with effect from 18th September, 1976, as a consequence whereof an Industrial Dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The first respondent made an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, for grant of approval of the said order of dismissal. This approval was granted by the Labour Court on 31st August 1977. The petitioner again raised an Industrial Dispute befo...
Aswatha Reddy Vs. Anjanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1264
Mirdhe, J.1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant who was the plaintiff in the Trial Court against the judgment and decree dated 17.6.1992 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Chickballapur, in O.S.No. 23/1990 partly decreeing the suit of the appellant for specific performance of the agreement of sale.2. Respondents-1 and 2 were the defendants-1 and 2 in the Trial Court. Respondent-3 is said to be the purchaser of the suit schedule property after the disposal of the suit and hence respondent-3 has been impleaded in this Appeal.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for respondents-2 and 3 fully and perused the records of the case.4. The appellant filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the appellant on 1.11.1986, 6.4.1987, 10.8.1988 and 14.11.1988 and also for the delivery of possession of the same and in the alternative he prayed for a direction to the defendants-1 and 2 t...
Sri Venkateswara Agricultural Farm Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1578; 1995(1)KarLJ566
Hanumanthappa, J.1. Since the question of law involved in all these Petitions are common these Petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by a common Order.2. In all these Petitions the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are almost identical, i.e., for a direction to the respondents to insert Clause VII of the General Conditions for the supply of electrical energy which was in force upto 2-5-1987 in the Notification dated 2-5-1987 with effect from 2-5-1987; to quash the demand notices issued to the petitioners and also to declare that the omission of Clause VII of the General Conditions for the supply of electrical energy in Notification No. KEB/BIO/2083/86-87 dated 2-5-1987 as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.3. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these Petitions are: The petitioners are Khandasari Sugar Mills. They entered into agreements with the Karnataka Electricity Board to supply of electrical energy. According to th...
Ramkumar Mills Ltd. Vs. Textile Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1125; 1994(2)KarLJ578
S.B. Majmudar, C.J1. There is no substance in these Appeals. The appellants are spinning mills and some of them are composite mills and all of them are situated in Bangalore district, except appellant No. 2 in W.As.853 to 859 of 1994, which is situated in the District of Dharwad.2. The first respondent - The Textile Commissioner, acting under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948 [for short, '1948 Order'] had issued a Notification calling upon all the producers of 'yarn' to comply with the provisions of the Notification dated 30th March 1985 in No. CER/17/85/1 as amended from time to time, to pack 'yarn' for civil consumption in the form of 'hank' in each half yearly period in proportion of not less than 50% of the total 'yarn' packed by a producer.3. The appellants contended, by filing the Writ Petitions, that the said Notification was ultra vires on various grounds. These Writ Petitions were filed in the year 1986. Now, during the pendency of these Writ Petitions, the Supreme Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›