Karnataka Court September 1994 Judgments
A.M. Eshwarachar Vs. Executive Engineer (Electrical)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3461; 1995(4)KarLJ705; (1995)ILLJ1065Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner's learned Counsel has advanced a very strong plea to this Court which is based on a two fold submission, the first being that the petitioner had remained absent over a long period of time though without prior approval due to illness for which certain medical certificates have been produced. His second contention is that even if the petitioner is to be penalised for his unauthorised absence, that it was not a case of such gravity of misconduct that would justify the order of dismissal which virtually in real terms has often been categorised as economic death. He submits that but for the illness, there is not valid reason why the petitioner would have remained absent and in these circumstances, he submits that the order of dismissal in the absence of any enquiry being held is liable to be struck down straightaway. Learned Counsel has also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Others v. Giriraj Sharma : (...
Tag this Judgment!Wipro Infotech Ltd. Vs. C.E.G.A.T.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1994(48)ECC223; 1995(75)ELT266(Kar); ILR1994KAR3224; 1994(5)KarLJ217
Tirath Singh Thakur, J.1. These writ appeals arise out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this court dated 14-7-1994 dismissing writ petitions Nos. 7469 to 7471/1994. A few facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals may be stated first.2. The appellant company is engaged in the manufacture of mini and micro computer systems for which purpose it has been importing diskettes and manuals from outside the country. During the relevant period the appellant made 3 importations at Bangalore Madras and Bombay in respect of which duty has been demanded and penalty imposed to the extent set out below :------------------------------------------------------------------------Order No. Duty Penalty on Penalty on President& date demanded company Sri Ashok Soota------------------------------------------------------------------------OR No. 13/92, 6,30,929 4,00,000 30,000dt. 10-5-1993OR No. 14/91, 58,58,790 5,00,000 50,000dt. 10-5-1993OR No. 15/92 Duty not 5,00,000 50,000assessedfinall...
Tag this Judgment!Khalsa Medical and Educational Trust Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3211; 1994(5)KarLJ204
Tirath S. Thakur, J1. In these Writ Appeals the Appellants call in question the correctness of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vacating an interim order of stay granted in favour of the Appellants and allowing the Statutory Bodies under law to perform their Statutory functions in terms of the Mysore Ayurvedic Practitioners Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of these Appeals may be stated first:Appellant No. 1 is a Medical and Educational Trust, which claims to have established an Institute of Medical Science at Madiwala, Bangalore. Appellant No. 3 is the President of the Trust and the Chairman of the Institute Appellant No. 2.The Appellants claim that Electro Homeopathy system of medicine is a proper medical science which even though not recognised as such, is in the process of being so recognised and legislative Bills for that purpose have been presented to the Parliament from time to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashraf Alias Lal Basha and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Railway Pro ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ182; ILR1994KAR3434; 1995(4)KarLJ655
Eswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioners have sought anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest for alleged offences relating to theft and unlawful possession of railway property. Crime No. 10 of 1994 is registered against the 2nd petitioner in the Railway Protection Force Station at Harihar. It is alleged that they apprehend arrest by the Railway Protection Force Police.2. The petition is opposed by the learned Government Pleader on the ground that under section 438, Cr.P.C. no anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused apprehend arrest by the Railway Protection Force and also on merits.3. The scope of Section 438, Cr.P.C. was considered by this Court in Criminal Petition Numbers 1601 and 1682 of 1994. It was held that sub-section (1) of section 438, is substantive in nature and that sub-sections (2) and (3) are only procedural and that directions under sub-section (1) can be issued to any person including the police, to release the person or persons apprehending arrest. The learned Gov...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Manjunath and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)226; 1995(1)ALT(Cri)226; 1995CriLJ179; ILR1994KAR3302; 1995(1)KarLJ50
J. Eswara Prasad, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in both these criminal petitions is whether the High Court or the Sessions Court can grant bail to the petitioners under section 438 of Cr. PC while they are accused of the offences punishable under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) and apprehend arrest at the hands of the Range Forest Officer.2. The petitioners in Cr.P. Nos. 1601 and 1682 of 1994 are accused of offences under sections 84, 86, 87 and 71(a) of the Act and FIRs were filed before the JMFC, Thirthahalli in Crime Nos. 154/94 and 177/94 respectively. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners filed petitions before the Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga under section 438, Cr. PC for the grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions holding that the petitions are not maintainable, following the decision of the learned single Judge in Shankar Nayak v. State of Karnataka (1991 Cri LJ 1468). The petitioners filed Cr.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ravindra Vs. Chairman, Coffee Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR663]; ILR1994KAR3746; 1995(4)KarLJ675; (1995)IILLJ1162Kant
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. This petition raises an interesting facet with regard to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment in a situation where it disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. That such a power exists is undisputed, but the petitioner's learned Counsel has seriously assailed the manner in which that power has been exercised, in so far, as he relies on the well defined principles of Service Law for the purpose of establishing the order in question is assailable. The facts in this case hardly require to be recounted. The petitioner who was an employee of the Coffee Board and at the relevant time was the Depot Manager was served with a chargesheet essentially holding him liable for shortage of approximately 1279 K. Gs of Coffee. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer after a detailed and careful verification of all the material recorded a finding that the charger was not proved. This report was placed before the Disciplinary Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra and Co. Vs. Director of Municipal Administration
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3059; 1994(4)KarLJ648
Hakeem, J. 1. In this Appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness and legality of the Order passed by the learned single Judge upholding the validity of the resolution passed by respondent-3 Municipal Council, cancelling its earlier Resolution dated 31 -10-1986.2. The appellant has been running his petrol pump in certain land belonging to. respondent-3 Municipal Council. Originally, the lease of the land was granted to him in the year 1953, which was renewed from time to time on the recommendation of the State Government. On the representation of the appellant, the State Government recommended to the Municipal Council to consider his application for purchasing the land at the market value. In pursuance of the said direction by the Government, respondent-3, by its Resolution dated 31-10-1986, resolved that the land in question be granted to the appellant at 1 1/2 times the market value thereof. The decision was said to have been taken by a majority of the Council. Howev...
Tag this Judgment!Govindarajulu Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3418; 1995(2)KarLJ339; (1995)IILLJ573Kant
Eswara Prasad, J1. These Appeals arise out of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in a batch of Writ Petitions in which common Questions arose for Consideration. The learned Judge disposed the Writ Petitions with certain directions and the said Judgment was followed in other Writ Petitions which were also disposed in the light of the said Judgment and these Appeals are filed by the Writ petitioners against the said Orders.2. The appellants were temporarily appointed to work as drivers and conductors in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short) in various divisions in the State of Karnataka on temporary basis and were continued from time to time, for short periods and were not taken in service thereafter. Their claim was that pursuant to an advertisement dated 4.1.1992, calling for applications for being appointed to the posts of conductors and drivers, they were called for interviews and they were appointed in regular vacancies and that the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Additional Civil Judge
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR291; 1995(5)KarLJ84
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J 1. Smt Bharathl Nagesh, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice.2. These Writ Petitions involve the same question of law and fact. Writ Petition No. 35048 of 1993 relates to the land acquired bearing Sy.No. 65 of Inepalli village, Sedam Taluk, Gulbarga District while in the other Writ petition No. 34352/93 the land acquired bears Sy.No. 66 of Inepalli village, Sedam Taluk, Gulbarga District. As in both the Petitions the point involved as well as the facts are same, the Writ Petition No. 35048/93 is taken as leading case and both are disposed of by one Common Order.3. These Writ Petitions are directed against Judgment and decree dated 22.1.1993 passed in Land Acquisition case No. 94/85 and 93/85 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga, whereby the Civil Judge has fully accepted and allowed the Reference and has held while proposing to raise the compensation to rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre in respect of the land bearing Sy.No. 65 ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagawandas Vs. Roasene Jerome D' Souza
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR440; 1995(4)KarLJ582
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This is the defendant's Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short 'C.P.C.', challenging the Judgment and Decree dated June 23, 1984 delivered by 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Regular Appeal No. 63/1983, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court dated April 20th, 1982, delivered and given by the Principal Munsiff, Belgaum, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's claim for possession and mesne profits in regular suit (O.S.No. 291/1971 - Roasene Jerome D'Souza v. Bhagwandas).2. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent filed the above mentioned suit on 7.9.1971, against the defendant -appellant for decree of possession over the suit property as described in para-1 of the plaint and for a decree of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 35/- per mensem from the date of suit till the delivery of actual possession.The plaintiff's case as per averments made in the plaint has ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »