Karnataka Court August 1994 Judgments

Shaik MohiddIn Vs. Section Officer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Kaiwa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)438; 1994CriLJ3689; ILR1994KAR2513; 1994(4)KarLJ147

ORDER1. In these three contempt petitions under sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act for short), the complainants have sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/accused and to punish them in accordance with law of disobedience of the orders made by the subordinate Courts. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the these cases are as follows :- The complainant in C.C.C. No. 605 of 1994 filed a suit in O.S. No. 92 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff, Chintamani, for a declaration that the notice in No. FA-KIP-652-53 dated 28-1-1993 issued by the respondent herein was illegal and for permanent injunction restraining him from disconnecting the electricity to installation No. KIP 19 of Chinnasandra village belonging to the complainant. After the notice was served, on the undertaking given by the respondent, the Court by its order dated 25-2-1993 directed not to disconnect power to the said installation of the complainant...

C.Y. Parthasarathy Vs. Syndicate of the Mysore University

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR2603; 1994(4)KarLJ702

Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. Can a delinquent employee facing a Domestic Enquiry participate in any such Enquiry, without demur and thereby take a chance of getting a favourable verdict, but finding that the verdict has gone against him, turn round and question the competence of the Authority initiating the Enquiry, is the short but crucial Question that falls for Consideration in this Appeal. A few facts relevant to the case need to be stated before proceeding any further:The appellant is an Executive Engineer in the employment of the Mysore University. On the basis of a specific complaint made by one Dr. K. Mahadev, a Member of the University Senate and the Syndicate, a preliminary enquiry into the allegations of misappropriation and shortage of cement and steel from the Engineering Division of the University was made. The enquiry showed that the allegations were prima facie correct based on which the Syndicate directed the framing of charges against the appellant and two others, one of wh...

Geetha Vs. Thimmaiah

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR2703

S.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. In these Appeals a short question is on the anvil for consideration. It is as to who is the appellate authority so far as the order of Liquidator exercising powers under Section 74 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') is concerned. Under Section 73 of the Act the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has got the power to appoint Liquidator. Addl. Director of industries and Commerce & Ex-Officio Addl. Registrar (Industries) acting as Registrar under Section 73 has appointed the Liquidator in the present case. That Liquidator has passed the order in exercise of powers under Section 74. The said order is brought in challenge before the Addl. Director of Industries & Commerce & Ex-Officio Addl. Registrar (Industries). Submission is the said officer is not entitled to act as appellate authority against the Liquidator's order as per Section 106(1)(k) read with Sub-section 2 (b) of the said Section, and therefore the appellate proceedings...

Bhatkal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR2525; 1994(4)KarLJ303

M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. Though this Appeal is directed against a seemingly innocuous order of remand, it has thrown up issues of some consequence which were vigorously agitated by learned Counsel on both sides and, therefore, require determination. The three appellants before us are Co-operative Banks, all of them relatively old ones, located at BhatKal, Ankola and Honnavar respectively. The second respondent, to this Appeal, the Sirsi Urban Co-operative Bank Limited has its Head Quarters at Sirsi, also in the District of Uttar Kannada. The dispute centres around the fact that the second respondent - Bank obtained permission from the Reserve Bank of India to open its Branches in some urban and semi-urban areas in North Canara District There is a reference in the pleadings that the Reserve Bank of India did not notify the other Banks who were already operational in those areas either about the application or about the grant of sanction but that aspect of the matter has not been agitated in...

State of Karnataka Vs. M. Raju

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR3244

ORDER1. Delay condoned. Special Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.2. These are a batch of Appeals preferred by the State of Karnataka aggrieved as it is against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka passed in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 1990 and other batch matters as also against other Judgments and Orders based thereon. The point raised herein is common.3. The Special Court trying offences under the Essential Commodities Act against the respondents stopped proceedings in spelling out a ban under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because investigation in the crimes had gone beyond the period of six months from the date of the arrest of the accused. On the stoppage of proceedings, the matter was taken to the High Court by the State in Revision but the view of the Special Judge was confirmed. Hence these Appeals.4. The view of the High Court cannot stand in the way of the prosecution because of a Judgment rendered by this Court in STATE OF W...

M.C. Bhat Vs. Syndicate Bank

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR86; 1995(1)KarLJ468; (1996)ILLJ210Kant

ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J 1.This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the Deputy General Manager bearing No. PRS:BNG:DGM:O/93/13 dated March 19, 1993, copy of which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-M. This is the order of punishment by which the petitioner's basic pay has been ordered to be reduced by one stage with cumulative effect in the time scale of pay with immediate effect for the breach of Regulation No. 3(1) read with Regulation No. 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, as found by the punishing authority. Punishing authority has further ordered that as regard the back wages the petitioner shall not be eligible for any back wages for the period of suspension as well as for any benefits for that period during which he was under suspension and further directed that his absence shall not be treated as on duty.2. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order bearing No. 69:PD:IRD:DA-7 dated June 9, 1.993 passed by...

Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs. Laxmanappa Basappa Whoti

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. These two petitions are directed against the order of the J.M.F.C., Muddebihal, in C.C. Nos. 243/92 and 596/92 respectively directing issue of process against the petitioner, who is common in both the cases, and for quashing the entire proceedings. 2. The respondent who is common in both the cases has filed two complaints before the Magistrate for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short). The respondent's case is that the petitioner who was due in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- issued one cheque dated 30-9-91 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and another cheque for Rs. 40,000/- dated 2-5-92 in respect of that liability, that when both the cheques were presented for encashment they were returned with an endorsement of insufficiency of funds, that the respondent issued notices to the petitioner demanding the payment and that in spite of the service of the notice the petitioner failed to pay amounts covered by the cheques and that he has thus committed an o...

Rathnavathi Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR3699; 1995(4)KarLJ694

ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J1. By this Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant and issuance of Writ of Certiorari or Writ or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the order issued by the Bangalore City Corporation on 27.4.1994 to the effect, 'You are hereby directed to remove the newly placed six windows in place of old ventilators forthwith. If you fail to comply with the order within....days, action will be taken against you under Section 462 and 436 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976'. This is the English translation of the operative portion of the provisional order as confirmed with modification. In the earlier part of the order, it has been stated like that, the petitioner had replaced old ventilators with new ones (six) unauthorisedly and that they had to be removed forthwith and so provisional order was passed calling upon the petitioner to show cause within a period of 3 days and as the authority was not satisfied with the reply, the order says...

Syed Sadiq Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR3710; 1995(4)KarLJ715

Hari Nath Tilhari, J1. This is a Revision filed under Section 121A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as 'Karnataka Act No. 10 of 1962', from the judgment and order dated 2.2.1989 passed in Appeal No. LRF.WP.MYS.APPEAL 745/86, as such by the Land Reform Appellate Authority, Mysore, hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Authority', whereby, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appellants appeal and confirmed the order dated 29.6.1976, in Case No. 2350/74-75 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mysore Taluk, Mysore, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', whereby, the Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of late Sri Basheer Beig, husband of opposite party - Respondent No. 3 in the present revision over an area of 5 acres 07 gs. of plot No. 169 and the area of 7 acres 16 gs. of plot No. 171 as well as in respect of the area of 1 acre of P.No. 172, in Devanur Village, in Mysore Taluk, District Mysore.2. The facts of the case in brief are that according to ...

Airwings Private Limited Vs. Viktoria Air Cargo Gmbh Langer Kornweg

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1995Kant69; ILR1994KAR2560; 1994(5)KarLJ124

ORDERS. B. Majmudar, C.J.1. Common procedural questions arise for our consideration in O.S.A. 19/93 and other Company Petitions. In Company Petitions, learned single Judge, Rajendra Babu, J., has referred the following two questions for our decision.(1) What is the scope of enquiry or hearing.(2) The nature or contents of order and whether the usual practise of this Court when matters are admitted and interim orders are granted no detailed reasons are setforth, applicable?As the common reference order shows these questions pertain to the stage prior to admission and advertisement of the Company petition moved by the petitioning-creditor for seeking order for winding-up respondent-company on the ground that the Company is unable to pay its debts as envisaged by S. 433(e) of the Act.In O.S.A. No. 19/93 also these procedural questions squarely arise for our consideration. Therefore, they were all heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The common questions pert...