Karnataka Court August 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Godrej K. Divecha and ors. Vs. Corporation of City of Bangalore and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1997KAR7
ORDERG.P. Shivaprakash, J.1 The petitioners who belong to the same family claim to be the owners of a certain apartment in a building known as 'Ahuja Palace' bearing No. 96, Richmond Road, Bangalore. The said building was constructed by respondents 2 and 3 after obtaining necessary plan and licence dated 29.2.1991 from the first respondent-Corporation. Under the said plan and licence, respondents 2 and 3 could construct a multi-storeyed, multi-apartment building consisting of basement, ground, first and second floors with a provision for eighteen apartments - six apartments in each floor. The petitioners have narrated in detail in the petition the circumstances under which they purchased the apartment. They have stated that they purchased the apartment on the representation of respondents 2 and 3 that the building would consist of only 18 apartments. According to them, they were also told that there would be a basement with prevision for covered car parking, and that there would be two...
Yellappa Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1071; ILR1996KAR28; 1995(6)KarLJ167
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 30-6-1993 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C. No. 3 of 1989 convicting the appellant who was accused No. 1 in the trial Court for the offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for an other two months. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Hashmath Pasha and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Shri A. B. Patil fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows :- P.W. 1, T. S. Bhagyamma, is the wife of deceased Shivachary. The appellant who was accused No. 1 is the husband of accused No. 2 and father of accused No. 3. All the three accused were living in Watchman Lane, Marikuppam, K. G. F. Deceased Shivachary was a Havaldar at Mysore Mines, K.G.F. He was living with the mem...
Leelamma Vs. Govindappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC82; ILR1995KAR2589; 1995(4)KarLJ448
Krishna Moorthy, J. 1. The plaintiff who is the wife of the defendant is the appellant. The Suit was originally filed before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for enhancement of maintenance both past and future.That on the establishment of the Family Court, the Suit was transferred to the Family Court.2. Shortly stated, the facts necessary for the disposal of the Appeal, are as follows:The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. She filed a Suit as an indigent person before the Munsiff Court, Kolar, in O.S.No. 409/71 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensum towards maintenance and also for recovery of past maintenance of Rs. 4,500/-. That suit was decreed on 3.9.1973. The defendant preferred an Appeal in R.A.No. 176/73 but it was also dismissed. The defendant preferred an Appeal in R.S.A.No. 233/76 before this Court and the said Appeal was also dismissed. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to comply with the decree for maintenance and she has filed an E...
Raghavendra Ranga Pai Vs. Vishwanatha Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2664; 1995(6)KarLJ588
ORDERMohan Kumar, J. 1. This case illustrates how otherwise a speedy remedy can be delayed and defeated by the deliberate actions. The petitioner which is a partnership firm had employed the 1st respondent herein as a clearing, packing and canvassing agent on a consolidated salary of Rs. 140/-. His services were terminated with effect from 31.8.1964. The present proceedings started challenging the termination. The 1st respondent challenged his termination as illegal and sought for appropriate remedy under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The office of the petitioner-firm was situated in Mangalore in South Kanara District which was formerly part of the erstwhile Madras State. The said appeal was preferred invoking Section 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Madras Act') before the Competent Authority then competent to entertain the appeal. Annexure-B is the appeal filed by the 1st respondent in September 1964 an...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.M. Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2923; 1995(5)KarLJ665; (1996)IILLJ536Kant
ORDERMohan Kumar, J1. Annexure-A award passed by the Labour Court is under challenge by the employer. The worker, a Conductor, was conducting the bus belonging to the employer on 8.10.1976. When it was checked, it was discovered that the worker had not issued tickets of 25 paise denomination to two passengers and had wilfully not accounted 10 tickets of 45 paise denomination. An enquiry was held and the worker was found guilty of the charges. He was dismissed from service. An appeal preferred by him was unsuccessful. The dispute thereafter was referred to the Labour Court.2. The worker filed a claim statement setting forth his claims and inter alia contended that the domestic enquiry is invalid. The employer filed the counter statement as well. It was contended by them inter alia that the worker was involved in 147 previous instances of default. Minor punishments such as fine, warning, censure, suspension, etc., were imposed on him. It was contended that the domestic enquiry was valid....
C.C. Subbaraya Setty Vs. C.V. Ananthanarayana Setty and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant41; ILR1995KAR2892; 1996(1)KarLJ35
1. This appeal is filed by respondent-3 in Arbitration Case No. 1 / 73 on the file of the Civil Judge, Hassan, against his order rejecting his application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act and passing a decree in accordance with the award.2. The appellant and respondent-5 are the sons of fourth respondent. First respondent is the son-in-law of fourth respondent and brother-in-law of the appellant and respondent-5. Second respondent is the brother-in-law of fourth respondent. Third respondent is a cousin of first respondent.3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the petition before the lower court under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stating that the appellant and respondent-4 and 5 had referred their dispute regarding partition of their family properties to them by means of a deed of submission dated 23-1-1972, that on 24-1-1972 they met the appellant and respondents-4 and 5 and collected particulars regarding their properties and liabilities, th...
Doddaraju Vs. District and Sessions Judge
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1231]; ILR1995KAR3229; 1995(6)KarLJ301
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. The petitioner in this case was employed as a Watchman/Peon in the Court of the Munsiff at Kadur. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him on the ground that he had absented himself for duties for a period of 120 days without having applied for leave, without having got the leave sanctioned or without having intimated the authorities of the grounds on which he was not attending his duties. The record indicates that two notices were sought to be sent to him to resume his duties which he did not do and after a long period of four months he merrily reported for duty. It was inevitable that disciplinary proceedings had to be instituted under the Conduct Regulations. He was asked to show cause as to why he should not be punished for unauthorised absence from duty over this long period of time. The petitioner did not dispute his absence and the only justification put forward by him was that due to financial difficulties he had borrowed money from various perso...
Mypower Mazdoor Welfare Union Vs. Secretary and Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3223; 1995(5)KarLJ326
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. This Petition raises a rather subtle issue concerning the delicate question relating to the exact function of the Government with regard to the making of a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act where the conciliation has failed. To amplify the exact nature of the controversy, what is contended is that the Government is not the adjudicating authority in such situations and therefore it is not entitled to evaluate the merits of the case which can only be done by the Labour Court. In sum and substance, what is contended is that where a settlement has failed at the conciliation level that as long as a bona fide dispute exists, the matter must be referred to the competent Court and that it is not within the province of the Government to refuse a Reference.2. The facts are within a very narrow ambit. The petitioner-Union represents certain employees who are designated as helpers and are employees of the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, hereinafter ...
Hanumantha Raju Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3072; 1996(5)KarLJ719
ORDERRajendra Babu, J1. In these Petitions, petitioners are calling in question the validity of Act 2/1994 which came into force with effect from 8th October, 1993 by which Section 24 of Karnataka Excise Act was substituted enablingthe State Government to accept payment of a sum or levy such licence fee or privilege fee as may be prescribed in consideration of grant of lease or licence or both by or under the Karnataka Excise Act. Section 3 of the Validation Act provides that Rule 8 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules are valid notwithstanding any Judgment to the contrary on the basis that the said Rule had been framed under the Karnataka Excise Act as amended by Act 2 of 1994.2. Identical contentions urged in support of the challenge to the validity of the said provisions of the Act or the reasonableness thereof have been considered in Writ Petition Nos. 20344 to 20421/1995 and connected matters (disposed of on 27/7/1995) : ILR1995KAR2599 and rejected. Henc...
Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)510; ILR1996KAR85; 1995(6)KarLJ200
ORDERSaldanha, J 1. This Petition involves a neat controversy in so far as the petitioners were admittedly appointed on a temporary basis around the years 1987-88 by the respondent No. 1 Zilla Parishad as Typists, Stenographers etc. It was their contention that they approached the Court in the year 1990 through this Petition, that their continuance in service has been recommended by the Zilla Parishad but more importantly, that they have been continuously in a state of insecurity because of the fact that they were being reappointed for various temporary periods with a break on each occasion thereby creating a situation whereunder the petitioners would be discontinued at any time. Secondly, what was pointed out by them was that insofar as they were effectively employed on a daily wages basis, that their aggregate emoluments were far less than what they would have normally received for the same work had they been holding a regular post. The two fold relief that is claimed in the Petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »