Karnataka Court July 1995 Judgments
Ebrahim Vs. Returning Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2181; 1995(6)KarLJ470
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Petitioner is a member of the second respondent - Co-operative Bank. Undisputedly he is one of the oldest members of the said Co-operative Bank and has held the post of elected Director for twenty-five years.2. Petitioner had filed his nomination paper which was duly received on 18.4.1995 for his election to the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank which was scheduled to be held on 26.4.1995. The first respondent was the Returning Officer. On 20.4.1995 the first respondent took up scrutiny of the nomination papers and rejected the same keeping in view the objection raised by 12 members to the effect that in the nomination paper the petitioner had disclosed his name as M.E. Ibrahim; but in the Membership Register and the List of Voters the same is found to be 'Musalmanara E.Ibrahim'. Respondent - Returning Officer has granted an endorsement to that effect which has been placed at Annexure-A.3. This Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner challenging t...
Tag this Judgment!Prathima S. Bhat Vs. Uppinangadi Grama Panchayath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2476; 1995(6)KarLJ136
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. The petitioner in this case had been awarded a contract for a Bus Stand Hotel at Upppinangadi in June 1994 pursuant to an auction held by the Gram Panchayat under whose jurisdiction the Bus Stand comes. She had entered into an Agreement to run the hotel for this period of time on certain terms and conditions which we are not immediately concerned with. The Agreement however specifies that it shall be in operation for a period of one year, that it will expire on 30,6.95 and that the petitioner undertakes to restore possession of the premises of the Gram Panchayat who is respondent No. 1 on the expiry of that period of time. As normally happens, the Panchayat re-auctioned the rights in 1995 and several persons including the petitioner took part in the auction. The highest bid was of Rs. 68,150/-and the petitioner was the second highest at Rs. 68,000/-. The respondents accepted the highest bid after which that person defaulted. According to the respondents' learned Cou...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Raju Vs. Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant84; ILR1995KAR2729; 1995(4)KarLJ500
ORDERS. A. Hakeem, Actg. C. J. 1. Although this appeal has come up for admission, by consent of the parties, it is heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is against the order rejecting the appellant's petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue tender forms in-respect of the work which was notified on 7-9f-1994 with estimate, and to further direct the respondents to renotify the tender notification with the revised estimate of Rs. 3,52,70,831/-. 3. The brief facts are as follows:-- The petitioner claims to be a Class I licensed electrical contractor. The respondent-Board issued a notification dated 7-9-1994 inviting tenders from the licensed contractors for providing external electrification for the multistoried tenements in the KHB Layout at Yelahanka New Town, Banglore.. The last date for issue of tender forms on payment of the prescribed fee was between 10-10-1994 and 12-10-1994. The last date for receipt of sealed tender forms was 22-10-1994. T...
Tag this Judgment!Jaishri Vs. Maruthi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3100; 1995(4)KarLJ638
Saldanha, J. 1. These two Appeals are directed against a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Basavakalyan, in Suit No. 92/93. R.F.A.No. 254/95 has been filed by the defendants to that suit and the principal contention canvassed is that the decision is almost on par with an expert decree and that therefore, having regard to the fact that the defendants had seriously contested the proceeding initially, as is apparent from the written statement filed, that they be given a fresh opportunity to contest the matter. Mr. Desai on behalf of the appellants in RFA 254/95 advanced a strong plea to the Court that this is a case in which a large number of properties belonging to the family are sought to be partitioned at the instance of the plaintiff who is the widow of one of the sons by the name of Sharanappa. It is necessary for me, for purposes of this Judgment, to refer to one particular aspect of the case which assumes some importance. Initially, the defence pleaded was the usual one of ...
Tag this Judgment!B.L. Nagaraj and Others Vs. Dr. Kantha and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant82; ILR1995KAR2050; 1995(5)KarLJ519
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek direction to the respondents 'to give clearance for the transplant operation of the 1st petitioner by transplanting one kidney of the 2nd petitioner in the Karnataka Nephrology and Transplant Institute.'2, It appears that an application was presented to the 'Authorization Committee' constituted under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (Act for short). The said application has been rejected by the Committee on 7-7-1995 on the following grounds:--1. Donor being Miss Lalithamba not genetically related to the recipient and 2. Other near relatives were not being considered as donors by the family (paternal uncle, wife, etc.)3. Section 9 of the Act reads as hereunder:--'9. Restrictions on removal and transplantation of human organs:--(1) Save as otherwise provided in subsection (3), no human organ removed from the body of a donor before his death shall be transplanted into a recipient unless the donor is a near relative of the r...
Tag this Judgment!Giridhari Balaram Radhakrishnani and Another Vs. M/S Mahisa Electronic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2010
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The first appellant claims to be the inventor of Patent No. 165069/10414 dated 7-7-1987 used as Ultrasonic Metal Hardness Tester (for short UMHT) and the second appellant is given the exclusive licence to exploit the said Patent. The second appellant claims to be manufacturing and selling the said Hardness Tester for several years. The second respondent is stated to be an employee with the second appellant and had access to the confidential information in relation to the said Hardness Tester. After the second respondent ceased to be the employee of the second appellant, the second respondent attempted to utilise the said information or use the same contrary to the terms of the contract of service in developing other Hardness Tester. Inasmuch as the appellant could not file any suit until the patent was sealed, he applied for such sealing on 7-7-1987 and the patent was actually sealed on 23-2-1990 as provided under Section 24 of the Patents Act, 1970 (for short th...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ539Kant
S.A. Hakeem, Actg. C.J.1. The main contention of Sri Kasturi, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the learned single judge ought to have taken into consideration the object and reasons impelling Parliament in amending Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which had earlier been held ultra vires by some of the courts. Merely because the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Section subsequently in another proceeding it cannot invalidate the action which was proper at the time it was taken by the management. Reliance is sought to be placed upon certain observations of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nellai Cotton Mills Ltd., (1991-I-LLJ-35). The learned judge in our opinion has rightly relied upon the ruling of the Constitution Bench in Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd., (1992-II-LLJ-294), in which the constitutional validity of Section 25N of the Act has been upheld.We are not persuaded to take a view different from what the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Usman Sab Vs. Dastagir Sab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR484; 1995(4)KarLJ429
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This is defendants' Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from the Judgment and decree dated 22.9.1994, delivered by the District Judge, Kolar, In Regular Appeal No. 7/1979, arising out of Judgment and decree dated 14.12.1978, passed in Suit O.S. No. 59/1974, by the Principal Civil Judge & C.J.M., Kolar.The plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition and for separate possession of their 1/4th share as claimed by them in the plaint properties mentioned in Schedules A & B. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit and the 1st Appellant Court having allowed the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and by decreeing the plaintiff's claim.2. The parties to the litigation are Muslims or Mohammedans and according to the case of the plaintiffs, Shaik Sudan Sab, had five sons. That Plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3, were the five sons and whereas, plaintiffs 1 and 2, as per their ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumappa Bhimappa Koujageri Vs. Bhimappa Sangappa Asari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1517; 1996(5)KarLJ67
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. These two Second Appeals, that is, R.S.A. No. 132/85 and R.S.A. No. 162/1985 respectively arise out of the common Judgment and decree dated 10.10.1984, delivered by Civil Judge, Gadag in R.C.A. Nos. 62 of 81 and 63/81 which had been filed by the original defendant, allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff after setting aside the common Judgment delivered by the Munsiff, Ron, on 31.7.1981, in O.S. No. 96/79 and Original Suit No. 57/1980, whereby the learned Munsiff, Ron, had decreed the present plaintiff-appellant's claim for declaration and injunction and also for rectification of record of rights, which claim had been made in Original Suit No. 96/79, 'that is, claim of rectification only.2. As per pleadings in both the Suits, the subject matter of dispute is R.S. No. 244/2A. According to the plaintiff's case, originally the land was R.S.No. 244, totally measuring 12 Acres 8 guntas and the same had been partitioned between Bharamappa and San...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjunagouda Vs. Principal Munsiff
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2595; 1995(4)KarLJ510
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. This Petition is directed against an order made by the Munsiff at Hubli in an Election Petition arising under Section 15 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 in relation to an election to the Gramapanchayat. The petitioner was the Returned candidate and his election came to be challenged by respondent No. 2 herein. Various grounds had been taken to challenge the election. The results of the elections were announced on 18.12.1993 and the Election Petition was filed on 10.1.1994. A Memo was filed seeking withdrawal of the Election Petition on 22.1.1994 and orders are yet to be passed by the learned Munsiff. In the meanwhile respondent No. 3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transpose him as the petitioner.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that a perusal of the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act in so far as Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are concerned they are akin to the provisions avai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »