Karnataka Court April 1996 Judgments
Lakshminarayana Vs. Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2809; 1996(5)KarLJ653
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner, while working as Regional Officer of the respondent-corporation at Mysore was proceeded against departmentally for several irregularities committed by him and removed from service on 10.5.1988. Aggrieved by this serious punishment imposed by the respondent - corporation, petitioner is before this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Brief facts are, petitioner was working as Regional Officer in the respondent-corporation. While posted as Regional Officer at Mysore, he was served with a charge sheet dated 19th June, 1987, containing ten charges of misconduct as Regional Officer at Mysore. Pending enquiry, he was kept under suspension. Petitioner by his explanation dated 6.7.1987 filed before the Disciplinary Authority denied the allegations made in the charge memo and satisfactorily explained each one of the charges. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority appointed one Sri R. Ramamurthy, Deputy Chief Marketing Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hirabai Vs. Hanumath Krishnaji Bhide
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3560; 1996(7)KarLJ383
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. This appeal is against the order dated 6.11.1995 passed on IA-I in Execution petition No. 395/94, by the Principal Civil Judge, Bijapur.2. This appeal is by Judgment-debtor No. 14. The facts of this case are:-Respondents-1 to 4 are the decree holders. They have obtained the decree as against the appellant and other 13 judgment-debtors. After obtaining the decree, the decree holders instituted execution proceedings for recovery of the amount due under the decree. In that process were brought the properties belonging to the judgment-debtors were brought for sale. Three items of properties were brought to sale i.e., land measuring 8 acres in survey No. 4/1, 13 acres 4 guntas in survey No. 24/2 and 6 acres 1 gunta in survey No. 23/2 of Hanchinal village, Bijapur District, which belong to the judgment-debtors. Out of the above said three items only land measuring 8 acres in survey No. 4/1 was sold in public auction held on 26.8.1995. After the sale the appellant-judg...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T.H. Devakumar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ588; AIR1996Kant345; ILR1996KAR1822
1. This is an appeal filed by the Insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing Regn. No. CAV 3548, challenging the judgment and award dated August 4, 1990 of the MACT-III, Bangalore in MVC 844/86 against appellant and Respondents 3 and 4 herein, granting compensation of Rupees 16,500/- with 9% interest per annum to the injured claimant W. H. Devakumar who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal.2. Appellant was respondent No. 1 in the said case. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were occupying the same position therein.3. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') had filed his claim petition under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' for short) before the Tribunal for grant of compensation onaccount of the injuries sustained by him and the damage caused to his car bearing Regn. No. MYU 5221 in the accident occurred on 30-6-86 at about 9.45 p.m. near Plaza theatre in Bangalore City when his car was hit by the said offending car bearing Regn. No. CAV 3548 a...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rafiq Ahmed Vs. C.R. Revanna Gurusiddappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2043; 1996(3)KarLJ134
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. This landlord's revision is directed against an order of dismissal of eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord in HRC No. 4923 of 1980 on the file of the Small Cause Judge, Bangalore.2. Petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) claiming to be the owner of the petition schedule premises having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dt. 10.9.1979. According to him respondent-firm is a tenant of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 110/-. He has communicated the fact of purchase of the premises from his previous owner and that his vendor also sent a notice of attornment to respondent No. 1. It is further stated that the respondent is in arrears of rent and is liable to be evicted for committing default in payment of rent. It is the further case of the petitioner that he purchased the petition schedule premises for the sole purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gowramma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2348; 1996(5)KarLJ507
M.M. Mirdhe J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore, on 21.5.1986 which is produced at Annexure-A.1.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner No. 1, Sri Gunjal and Sri Subbanna, learned Counsel for petitioners 2 to 6 and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and perused the records of the case.3. It is not disputed in this case that the land in question belonged originally to one Pilla Reddy and Gurappa Reddy purchased it from him. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No. 1 is the wife of Gurappa Reddy and petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are the sons of Gurappa Reddy. Respondent No. 3 filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in the land in question to the extent of one acre and one gunta and the Tribunal by its impugned order which came to be passed as far back as on 21.5.1986 granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Maruthi Khandasari and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2391; 1996(5)KarLJ517
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions are all industries manufacturing Khandasari sugar located at Bidar District, Karnataka State. It is the case of the petitioners that their industrial units were established several years back and the licence for manufacture of Khandasari sugar or rab for conversion into Khandasari sugar were issued to them by the State Government in exercise of the delegated power as provided under the provisions of Karnataka Khandasari Sugar Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1980. The licences issued to the petitioners for the period commencing from 17.12.1990 to 16.03.91 have been produced as Annexures-'A1 to A9'.2. In these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for : (1) 'quashing condition No. 14 provided in Licences Annexures 1 to 9 issued to them; (2) direction to respondents 1 to 6 not to impose any condition in the licences for manufacture of Khandasari regarding each petitioner without following the procedure prescribed; (3) and...
Tag this Judgment!Allisa Modinsa Mulla and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3641; 1996(7)KarLJ705
ORDERJ. Eswar Prasad, J.1. The petitioners challenge the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 12.3.1987 and the final notification under Section 6(1) dated 19.4.1988 by which the lands of the petitioners to an extent of 2 acres 16 guntas in R.S.No. 608 of Almel Village in Sindgi Taluk of Bijapur District were sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing play ground for a School, which is being run by the 4th respondent Education Society.2. The petitioners attack the acquisition proceedings on various grounds:Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the Special Deputy Commissioner who issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not authorised to do so, and that he was competent to delegate the powers to the Assistant Commissioner for receiving objections. It was next contended that the purpose for which the acquisition is made is not a public purpose and that the government has not followed the procedure required to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Anantha R. Hegde Vs. Capt. T.S. Gopalakrishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas312(Kar); ILR1996KAR2267; 1996(3)KarLJ445
M.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. The petitioners are the shareholders/members of the Bangalore Stock Exchange Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the stock exchange'), the premier Stock Exchange of Karnataka. The board of directors of the stock exchange which is known as the council of management consists of 13 directors, six directors elected by the members of the Bangalore Stock Exchange, three directors are public representatives and three are nominated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, which is a Government of India organisation. The respondent herein was a director of the stock exchange. Due to various misdeeds committed by the respondent, he was removed from the directorship of the stock exchange by an overwhelming majority of the members of the stock exchange at the annual general meeting held on November 19, 1994. Ever since then, it is alleged that he has been filing false and frivolous suits, writ petitions, criminal complaints, against the stock exchange and he is trying ...
Tag this Judgment!Michael Mascarenhas, Major and Others Vs. John Mascarenhas, Major
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant348; ILR1996KAR1957; 1996(3)KarLJ114
ORDER1. Though this matter was listed for preliminary hearing, the same was taken-up for final disposal by consent of both sides.2. This is a revision petition filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 10182/85, on the file of the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under Sec. 115 of C.P.C., challenging the validity of the order passed by the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on 27-2-96 in O.S. No. 10182/85, rejecting the request of the petitioner's Counsel to exhibit an affidavit sworn to by P.W. 1 (the respondent/plaintiff). The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10182/85, on the file of the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The plaintiff has filed the suif for a declaration declaring the plaintiff and his family members have a right of common enjoyment of the suit schedule property and usufruct from the coconut and other fruit yielding trees, directing the defendants to pay regularly the plaintiffs share of usufruct from coconut and fruit trees and on their failure, the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Panduranga Rao K.V. Vs. Karnataka Dairy Devlopment Corporation and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)KarLJ477
1. Superintendent (Personnel) was the post held by the petitioner at the time of dismissal from service by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved by this unjustified action of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court. The short question involved in this petition is whether the disciplinary enquiry proceedings held by the respondents is in accordance with the principles of natural justice and whether the severe punishment imposed by the employer is in commensuration with the gravity of charges alleged against the delinquent official. 2. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to note a few background facts. 3. The petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 1 on November 2, 1978, as superintendent (Personnel) and posted to Bangalore Dairy Bangalore. Some time in the month of October 1981, he was transferred to Mysore Dairy Complex, Mysore. There, he was served with memo dated July 8, 1985, by the General Manager of Respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »