Karnataka Court July 1996 Judgments
Smt. Shyamala Bai and ors. Vs. Smt. Saraswathi Bai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3091; 1996(5)KarLJ709
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. This revision by defendant Nos. 5 to 8 in O.S.7339/93 pending on the file of learned V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore is directed against the order ie. 'Judgment' dated September 22, 1995 passed on I.A.20 filed by plaintiff under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('C.P.C' for short) allowing in part plaintiff's claim for specific performance of the contract of sale against respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are defendants 1 to 4 in the said suit, on the basis of their admission made in their written statement and in their statement filed in response to plaintiff's I.A.No. 20.2. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel on both sides.Since the very maintainability of this revision was seriously challenged by respondent No. 5 (plaintiff) the learned Counsel for both parties were heard on the point of its maintainability.The material facts of the case are as stated under:Respondent No. 5 filed the said suit ie. O.S.7339/93, in the Court below ag...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shameemunnisa Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3127; 1996(6)KarLJ157
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to approve the admission of the petitioner to the T.C.H, course which she has taken in the 3rd respondent-Institute.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been admitted to the 3rd respondent-Institute in December 1995 within the permissible intake as fixed by the affiliating authority before coming into force of the National Teacher Education Council Act, 1993. In the present case, the first and second respondents have refused to approve the admission of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of admission, her age was more than 35 years and as per the Government circular dated 5.6.1995 it was not permissible for any institute to admit the candidates of more than 35 years of age. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the validity of the said Government circular on the ground that it is opposed to the statutory r...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Sugar Company Ltd. Vs. B.T. Krishnamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR316]; ILR1996KAR3584; 1996(7)KarLJ839
S. Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is filed by the employer against the order of the Commissioner for- workmens compensation, Mandya District, Mandya, questioning the correctness of the award of Rs. 55,243/-as compensation to the respondent for injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 23.11.91.2. It is not disputed that on 23.11.91 when the respondent was attending to his work near Juice Suppuration Tank in the factory of the appellant he fell from a height of 15 feet and sustained some injuries. Though the appellant sought to make out that the accident took place only on account of the negligence of the respondent, the Commissioner has found that the respondent sustained the injuries in an accident while attending to his work. This finding is not disputed now. The Commissioner on the basis of the evidence of the respondent and the doctor examined by him has assessed the loss of earning capacity at 50% and on that basis awarded the compensation of Rs. 46,043/- and ha...
Tag this Judgment!V. Mallikarjunaiah Vs. H.C. Goowramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC10; ILR1997KAR964; 1997(1)KarLJ570
ORDER1. A very unusual aspect of the law relating to Hindu marriages has been thrown up for decision in this C.R.P. It can basically be summarised in the following proposition namely, 'whether a Hindu marriage solemnized in breach of the conditions prescribed in sub-clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, namely, the minimum age requirement of 21 and 18 as regards' the boy and the girl, is void, voidable or whether the marriage is to be treated as a valid marriage despite this breach?'2. The facts giving rise to the dispute may briefly be set out. The petitioner before me instituted Matrimonial case No. 6/92 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Tiptur. His contention was that the marriage solemnized between him and the respondent on 13-6-1990 is liable to be declared as a void marriage because, the petitioner at that time had not completed the minimum age requirement of 21 years. He sought to rely on the fact that he had produced a school Transfer Certificate whichindicated ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Esteco Coal Services Limited Vs. the Karnataka Power Corporation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant220
ORDER1. The petitioner, in this petition is a private limited company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office at Bombay. It is the case of the petitioner that it is the largest coal importers, suppliers and handling agents undertaking about 1.5 million tons of coal annually by road, rail and road-cum-sea route; and it is the pioneer in the movement of coastal coal from Paradip Port to Gujarat and other ports situated on the western coast of India on their own chartered vessels.2. The 1st respondent is the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') which is an instrumentality of the State of Karnataka, and respondents 3 and 4 are the officials of the 1st respondent Corporation.3. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the validity of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause 4 of the Tender Notification No. A1 M1 B3/II/RSR December, 1995, issued by the 1st respondent, pursuant to the invitation...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nagendrappa Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR507a
ORDER1. Revision petition challenges the order dated July 31, 1993 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kudligi in Crl.M.C. No. 133/1991 sentencing the Society to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 years and issuing Non-Bailable Warrant for the arrest. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. The revision arises in the following circumstances : The Commercial Tax Officer, Harapanahalli made an application before the learned Magistrate under S. 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,600/- being the arrears of tax for the assessment year 1985-86. The learned Magistrate on receiving the application issued fine levy warrant for the recovery of the amount. The Police, however, reported that revision petitioner-Society did not possess either moveable or immoveable property. It is, therefore, on July 31, 1993, the learned Magistrate directs the revision petitioner (Secretary of the Society) to s...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nagendrappa Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Harapanahalli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)885; 1997CriLJ164; ILR1997KAR507; [1996]103STC551(Kar)
ORDERB.N. Mallikarjuna, J.1. Revision petitioner challenges the order dated July 31, 1993 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kudligi, in Crl. M.C. No. 133 of 1991 sentencing the society to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 years and issuing non-bailable warrant for the arrest. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. The revision arises in the following circumstances : The Commercial Tax Officer, Harapanahalli, made an application before the learned Magistrate under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 of recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,600 being the arrears of tax for the assessment year 1985-86. The learned Magistrate on receiving the application issued fine levy warrant for the recovery of the amount. The police, however, reported that revision petitioner-society did not possess either movable or immovable property. It is, therefore, on July 31, 1993, the learned Magistrate directs the revision-petitioner (...
Tag this Judgment!N.K.S. Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3259; 1996(6)KarLJ187
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J. 1. In all these matters, the petitioners have claimed interest as against the State at 5 1/2% on cash payment of compensation amount either paid in part or in full under Section 51 of the Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to in brief as the Act), firstly on the ground that the lands were vested in the State from the appointed day i.e. 1.3.74 and secondly that they were deprived of the rentals they were receiving till that appointed day from the tenants. They also questioned the rationales on the part of the State for limiting the award of interest only to the amount deferred and paid in the form of National Savings Certificate. In W.P.No. 18591/ 88 the petitioner also questioned the rejection of his request for such a claim as at Annexure 'C' to the Writ Petition issued by the Tahsildar, Chikkodi and further the circular issued by the State Government as at Annexure 'D' to the Writ Petition explaining the mode of calculations of the compensation amount an...
Tag this Judgment!Telegraph Master (D) and Ors. Vs. F.E. D'Silva and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR994
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J1. This Writ Petition calls in question an order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Belgaum dated 17th of August 1990 and that passed by the State Consumer Redressal Forum, Bangalore dated 21st of November 1990, whereby Respondent No. 1 has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of the delay caused by the Telegraph Department in delivering a telegram sent through it. The challenge arises in the back ground of the following facts:-The claimant respondent's son had applied for the post of an Aerodrome Officer in the National Air Ports Authority and was selected for the post. By an order dated 1st of November 1989, he was required to report for duty at Allahabad on 27th of November 1989. This order was received by the claimant but since his son had in the meantime joined MBA course in Birla Institute at Ranchi, the claimant sent a telegram to him on 8th of November 1989 asking the former to return immediately with the original certificates and st...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C. Staff and Workers Federation Vs. K.S.R.T.C. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR699]; ILR1996KAR3514
1. That, in order to decide the question as to who, among the different federations of the employees unions of the first respondent Corporation, should be recognised as the recognised sole collective bargaining agent of all the workmen in KSRTC, a referendum was held on December 11, 1987. The petitioner having secured 53% of votes polled at the corporate level was accorded recognition by the first respondent, as sole collective bargaining agent of all the workmen in KSRTC by its Official Memorandum dated December 24, 1987. That, on July 28, 1988, a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 18(1) read with Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was made between the petitioner-federation and the first respondent Corporation. The said Memorandum of Settlement is produced at Annexure-D. The only subject of the settlement under Annexure-D is as to the deduction of the subscription of the members of the Unions affiliated to the petitioner-federation from their wages. It is agreed be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »