Karnataka Court March 1995 Judgments

Amco Batteries Vs. S. Rammohan

Court: Karnataka

1. The defendant has filed this appeal challenging the interlocutory order of injunction granted by the civil court restraining the defendant from proceeding with a domestic enquiry. Shorn of details the bare facts are as follows :-2. The respondent herein is an employee working under the appellant. On April 19, 1993, he was charge-sheeted for wrongly certifying sodium chloride as sodium sulphate, as a result of which the employer claims to have sustained heavy loss. The General Manager of one of the units of the defendant company was appointed as enquiry officer. On May 4, 1993, notice of enquiry was issued to the plaintiff-respondent. In response, on May 19, 1993, the plaintiff appeared and sought permission to be represented by a lawyer to defend him in the enquiry. The permission was declined. Thereupon, the present suit was filed with the following prayer.3.(a) Declaring that the enquiry instituted, vide letter dated May 4, 1993, and the proceedings of the enquiry dated May 19, 19...

L.N. Prakash Vs. United India Insurance Co. and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(1995)ACC500; 1996ACJ217; AIR1996Kant75; ILR1995KAR1946; 1995(2)KarLJ434

1. In this appeal, the claimant has challenged the finding of the Tribunal on the question of actionable negligence of respondent No. 3 and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are as follows:The appellant was working as an operator in Pandyan Cements and Minerals Industries, Bommanahalli, Bangalore, on a salary of Rs. 1,300/- p.m. On 14-9-1989 at about 2 p. rn. he was riding a scooter bearing No. MER 883 on 9th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bangalore, on the left side of the road. At that time, a motor cycle bearing No. CKJ 6155 driven by the 3rd respondent suddenly entered the main road from 33rd cross and dashed against the appellant. As a result, he fell down and sustained some grievous injuries. According to him, he was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital where first aid was given and then he got himself shifted to Rajalakshmi Nursing Home where he was treated as an inpatient. A complaint was lodged before the Jayanagar police ...

Karnataka theatres Ltd. Vs. S. Venkatesan and Another, Etc. Etc.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant18; 1995(3)KarLJ267

ORDER1. These petitions are directed against an order made by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as 'CLB') in Appeals filed before it under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act) against the decision of the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Company (hereinafter referred to as BOD of 'Company') declining to register certain shares of the Company said to have been acquired by the first respondent in each of these cases.2. Before the CLB the petitioner contended that the Appeals filed by first respondent in each of these cases before it were barred by limitation, as the same were not filed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's letter regarding refusal to transfer shares. On this aspect of the matter, the Board classified the Appeals into three categories :(i) that there are certain Appeals in which there was no delay at all;(ii) certain Appeals in which there was delay; and(iii) certain other Appeals have been forward...

Manipal Industries Ltd. Vs. Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant355; ILR1996KAR425; 1995(5)KarLJ559

1. An interesting aspect of law relating to the institution and filing ofsuits has arisen for decision in this pair of appeals which centres round the question as to when precisely can it be held that a suit has been filed or instituted; though seemingly clear some ambiguity has arisen because of the sequence of events in this proceeding. The original plaintiff M/s. Manipal Industries Limited filed a suit before the learned VIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore to recover a sum of Rs. 3,21,245/- from the defendants-Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'FCI'). It is the plaintiffs' case that the following three items of amounts had been paid to the FCI in connection with the supply of fertilizers and that since the transactions did not materalize, the amounts were repayable along with interest that had accrued thereof.1. Rs. 18,950-00 paid on 11-10-1972 2. Rs. 1,00,000-30 paid on 10-11-1972 3. Rs. 1,12,000-00 paid on 6-12-1972 For a variety of reasons...

Karnataka theatres Ltd. Vs. S. Venkatesan and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1995]83CompCas882(Kar); ILR1995KAR1530

S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These petitions are directed against an order made by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the CLB') in appeals filed before it under section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), against the decision of the board of directors of the petitioner-company (hereinafter referred to as 'BODs company') declining to register certain shares of the company said to have been acquired by the first respondent in each of these cases. 2. Before the CLB, the petitioner contended that the appeals filed by the first respondent in each of these cases before it were barred by limitation, as the same were not filed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's letter regarding refusal to transfer shares. On this aspect of the matter, the Board classified the appeals into three categories : (i) that there are certain appeals in which there was no delay at all; (ii) certain appeals in which there was delay; and (iii) certain ...

The State of Karnataka Vs. Shabuddin

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)328; 1995CriLJ3237; ILR1995KAR1507; 1995(2)KarLJ168

Mirdhe, J. 1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the State under S. 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 13-4-1993 passed, by the Sessions Judge, Raichur, in S.C. No. 38/1992 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under S. 307 IPC. 2. We have heard the learned Addl. S.P.P. Sri A. B. Patil and the learned Amicus Curiae Sri Pavin fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows : P.W. 5 Sabir is the father of the accused. Both of them maintain themselves by electro plating of utensils by moving from village to village. They used to go to a village for that work and return to their place at Bannimarada camp. P.W. 2 is a resident of Bannimarada camp. She resides in her village along with her two sons and daughers-in-law. She is the complainant in the case. The marriage of P.W. 1 with the accused took place about eight years back and since the marriage she was staying in Bannimarada camp along with her husband an...

Jade Basappa Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR2474; 1995(6)KarLJ130

Saldanha, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate on both sides. This being an old case wherein the appellants are only asking for an enhancement in the compensation, I had directed notice to the learned Government Advocate. The learned Government Advocate points out that the lower Court records are not yet received and that there are certain records on which he desires to rely on. For instance, he points out that the copies which have been furnished to him and which have been scrutinized pertain to the previous years and not to the year during which acquisition took place. He further submits that for purposes of following the capitalization method it will be very necessary that the Court scrutinizes, on the basis of the figures in the impugned order, as to whether any interference is called for. It is his submission that the Court is required to average the yield and thereafter multiply the same and that the learned trial Judge has been not only cautious but absolutely correct while following...

Sri Venkateshwara Vidyalaya Vs. Shamantha

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1996(1)KarLJ200

ORDERVishwanath, J 1. These two Revision Petitions filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short 'the K.R.C. Act') arise out of the order dated 26th March, 1992 passed by the Additional Small Cause Judge in H.R.C.No. 1995 of 1988. H.R.R.P.No. 2841 of 1992 has been filed by the tenant. H.R.R.P.No. 3710 of 1992 has been filed by the landlord. The parties would be referred as per their ranks in the lower Court.2. The landlady filed the Eviction Petition under Section 21(1) Proviso (h)(j) and (k) of the K.R.C. Act. In the Eviction Petition the landlady has alleged:- The petitioner-landlady has purchased the premises bearing No. 182, situate at Link Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3. The respondent is a tenant on the schedule premises on a rent of Rs. 350/- per month. 'The schedule premises is an old structure and is in a dilapidated condition and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The existing construction has been built up out of brick, cement plastering ...

T.J. Mariyappa Vs. Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR1394; 1995(3)KarLJ427

ORDERKrishna Murthy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Munsiff on 4.1.1971 in Karnataka Judicial Department and he was promoted as Civil Judge in the year 1980 and further promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge in the year 1980, in the scale of Rs. 4550-5600. He took charge of the part of District and Sessions Judge on 20.6.1990. He had worked in various capacities as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, District Judge Member, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bangalore, etc., and retired from service on 31.12.1994. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that the post of Munsiff and Civil Judges carry uniform scale of pay. The post of District Judges also carried uniform pay scale of Rs. 4550-5600 upto 1.6.1989. Thereafter, as per the Government order dated 1.6.1989, 10 posts of District Judges were created in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 5600-6300. The method of appointment to these posts was also prescribed by the Government Notifica...

State of Karnataka Vs. Nagappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR1361; 1995(2)KarLJ28

ORDERNavadgi, J1. These Revision Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order since the Question of Law involved in alt of them is the same. The original Order shall be kept in the record and proceedings in Criminal Revision Petition No. 114/93, whereas a copy thereof shall be retained in each of the record and proceedings in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos.586, 587 and 588, of 1994.Facts in Cr.R.P.No. 114/19932. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23-12-1992 made by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Raichur ('the learned trial Judge' for short), in Special Atrocities C.C.No. 11/1991. Under the order impugned, the learned trial Judge has held that the only offence he could try under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short), would be the one punishable under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Act. In that view of the matter, he has altered the charges framed aga...