Karnataka Court August 1995 Judgments
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sri. Pauli Govis and An ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant247; ILR1996KAR295; 1995(6)KarLJ177
ORDER1. These writ petitions filed by the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation raise common questions of law and are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The grievance made by the petitioner-Corporation in all these petitions is directed against the grant of stage carriage permits to the respondent-grantees by the RegionalTransport Authority, Shimoga. The petitioner contends that the grants in question are in violation of the Shimoga Scheme which totally excludes the private operators from the routes notified under the same. According to the petitioner, the grants in question overlap the notified routes and are therefore wholly incompetent and in blatant violation of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. I have heard Mr. Prakash Shetty, learned Counsel appearing, in all these petitions on behalf of the Corporation and Mr. Krishna Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for some of the grantees. The rest of the grantee-respondents have remained absent even though ser...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Subramanya Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(5)KarLJ531; (1996)IILLJ1143Kant
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question his compulsory retirement from the service of the respondent bank in consequence of a Disciplinary enquiry held against him. He also challenges the vires of Regulations 3 and 24 of the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (for short 'the Conduct Regulations'), and the legality of his suspension pending enquiry. The facts in the background are brief and may be stated first. 2. The petitioner was working as a manager of the New Timber Yard Layout Branch of the respondent bank at Bangalore. He was served with a charge-sheet accusing him of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations. The petitioner's reply to the charges was found unsatisfactory resulting in the initiation of a formal enquiry. The inquiry officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the charges fr...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. M.B. Byregowda and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Ksrtc and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1997KAR368
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J1. 'Long holidays and Short working hours' is the burden of the claim made in these Writ Petitions, which call in question Circular Nos. 6, 10 & 31 dated 22.4.1991, 5.8.1991, and 7.2.1995 respectively issued by the Respondent-Corporation. By these Circulars Ministerial staff posted in Depots, Control points, Stores and workshops have been asked to work for 8 hours a day be entitled to a total of 10 valid holidays during the span of One year. The petitioners contend that the increase in the working hours from 6 1/2 hours to 8 hours a day and the decrease in the number of holidays from twenty two per year to a bare ten is illegal and amounts to changing their service conditions to their prejudice without the authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Statutes applicable to them. The facts are few and may be stated first:2. The petitioners are working as Clerks, Cashiers, Typists, Junior Assistants, Supervisors etc., and are presently posted in differen...
Tag this Judgment!Rangadas Naik Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1997ACJ1392; ILR1996KAR975; 1996(2)KarLJ191
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. The Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions except those in Writ Petition Nos. 27695/95 & 25119/1995 are claimants in different Claim Petitions presently pending disposal before the respective Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State of Karnataka. Writ Petitions No. 27695/95 & 25119/1995 have been filed by the Belgaum and the Mangalore Bar Associations in public interest for the general benefit of the claimants who are for economic reasons disabled from instituting independent Writ Petitions.2. The Writ Petitions call in question Notification dated 30th March, 1995, issued by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of its powers under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Circulars dated 6th April, 1995 and 29th May, 1995 issued by the Registrar (General) of the High Court of Karnataka, prescribing certain Guidelines for the Accidents Claims Tribunal to follow while transferring the Accidents Claims Cases to the Additional Tribunals constitute...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Rao Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3599; 1995(5)KarLJ332
ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY - Obligation to record reasons The obligation to record reasons applies more vigorously to authorities whose orders are subject to appeal or revision before a higher authority. In such cases the requirement of recording reasons, not only ensures proper consideration by the authorities concerned of the relevant facts but also introduces clarity in the decision and minimises the chances of arbitrariness in the making of the said decision. Since any such order is appealable before a higher authority, the recording of reasons becomes necessary even to enable the Appellate Authority to appreciate the process of reasoning by which the lower Authority has arrived at its conclusions. The obligation to give reasons however, may be dispensed with by the provisions of a statute or the Rules either expressly or by necessary implication. If it is so excluded the obligation to record reasons disappears, as in the case of Court Martials exercising their jurisdiction under...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Vs. Management of Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2943
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J1. That transfer is an incident of service is fairly well settled. Courts have seldom interfered with such orders except in cases where the same are vitiated by mala fides or are opposed to any mandatory, statutory Rule. The legal position is no longer resintegra having been authoritatively stated by the Apex Court in B. VARADA RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA : (1986)IILLJ516SC ; SHILPI BOSE v. STATE OF BIHAR : (1991)IILLJ591SC and UNION OF INDIA v. S.L ABBAS : (1993)IILLJ626SC . In the last mentioned Judgment, the Supreme Court went a step further and held that guidelines issued by the employer regulating transfer of the employees did not create any legally enforceable right in the employees and even when such guidelines were not followed while issuing orders of transfers, the Courts cannot interfere.2. The position is no different when it comes to employees of the Public Sector Banks like the Respondent herein. Even there the matters stand concluded by the Apex Cour...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Rajanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ1015
S. Venkataraman, J.1. In this appeal the insurer has questioned the correctness of the judgment and award of the Tribunal fastening the liability to pay the compensation on the insurer.2. The claimant-first respondent sustained injuries in an accident when he was travelling on the pillion of the motor cycle belonging to the second respondent and driven by the third respondent on 17.1.1982 at 11.15 p.m. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not contest the claim, only the appellant insurer contested the claim. The Tribunal having found that the accident took place due to the rash or negligent driving of the motor cycle has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards injuries, pain and suffering, Rs. 2,000/- towards expenses, Rs. 1,000/- towards future expenses, Rs. 6,732.42 towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of future income, in all a sum of Rs. 81,232/-. The Tribunal has further held that as under the policy the seating capacity of the ve...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Vs. Chairman and Managing Director
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3434
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner calls in question his compulsory retirement from the service of the Respondent-Bank in consequence of a Disciplinary Enquiry held against him. He also challenges the vires of Regulations 3 and 24 of the Indian-Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976, (for short the Conduct Regulations) and the legality of his suspension pending enquiry. The facts in the background are brief and may be stated first.2. The petitioner was working as Manager of the New Timber Yard Layout Branch of the Respondent-Bank at Bangalore. He was served with a Chargesheet accusing him of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations. The petitioner's reply to the charges was found unsatisfactory resulting in the initiation of a formal enquiry. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the charges fra...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kadugodi Police, Bangalore Vs. Gulzar Khan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ624; ILR1995KAR2626; 1995(6)KarLJ721
ORDER1. In this petition filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State, the State prays for cancellation of the anticipatory bail order granted in favour of the respondent on 16-3-1995 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 130 of 1995 on his file. 2. Respondent is accused No. 1 in Crime No. 45 of 1995 of Kadugodi Police Station, Bangalore. The said crime number is registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341 and 302, I.P.C. against twenty persons. 2A. According to prosecution, on 2-3-1995 Thimmaraju, resident of Dinnur village being an employee of N.G.E.P. prepared himself his house to go to the factory at about 5.45 A.M. and his wife Smt. Umadevi the complainant also joined him to go to her mother's house and when they came in front of Ujwal School building, Kadugodi 'O' Farm Road between 5.55 A.M. and 6.00 A.M. the respondent and other accused pers...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/S. Property and Finance Private Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant264; ILR1995KAR2401; 1995(5)KarLJ247
ORDERM.L. Pendse, C.J.1. M/s. Propertyand Finance Private Limited is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and initially had its registered office at Calcutta. The Company owned immoveable property known as M/s. Palace Hotel situated at Karachi in Pakistan. After the hostilities between India and Pakistan commenced in the year 1965, the Government of Pakistan directed by an Ordinance that alt properties of Indian nationals and Indian Companies shall vest in the Custodian of Enemy Properties. As a result of the Ordinance, the Companies were divested of the properties. The Government of India also issued an Ordinance in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (1) of Rule 133 (v) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 providing that all immoveable properties in India belonging to Pakistani Nationals shall vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property in India.2. As the Indian Nationals and the Companies registered in India lost their properties situate in Pakistan and suffe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »