Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR509
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. The applicants who are employees of the respondent-Corporation filed Writ Petitions challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them under the provisions of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) mainly on the ground that the said Regulations were non existent, void being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called as the '1946 Act'). It was submitted that the Regulations allegedly framed under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act) were neither reasonable nor fair. The appellants prayed for issuance of directions prohibiting the respondents, their agents, servants and others acting on their behalf from taking any action against them under the regulation or in pursuance of the endorsement issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1025; 1997(4)KarLJ1
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Authority') dated 16.1.93 attached to the petitions as Annex-T, various allottees of the plots under the scheme advertised vide Annex-A have filed these petitions with the prayer of quashing the resolution of the authority under subject No. 235/92 dated 19.12.1992 holding the same to be illegal, unconstitutional and void. It is further prayed that the authority be directed to fix the sital value of the sites allotted to the petitioners strictly in proportion to the actual Cost of forming the sites of different dimensions and receive the balance of sital value from the petitioners only after completing the development scheme strictly in accordance with the requirements of Section 16 of the B.D.A. Act. In some of the petitions, a prayer has been made for declaring Rule 12 of the Bangalore Development Authority Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called the Rules) as unconstitutional and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)ALT(Cri)176; 1998CriLJ768; 1998(6)KarLJ464
ORDER9-1-1997:1. This contempt proceeding has been instituted by Dr. H. Singh Khalsa, whom we shall hereinafter refer to as the 'complainant' and who was at the relevant time running Khalsa Medical and Educational Trust. The complainant claims that he is specialised in the field of Electropathy Electro Homeopathy, which is an alternate system of medicine and it is his case that the Trust was running an institution by name Khalsa Institute of Medical Sciences for the purpose of doing researchand imparting education in this particular branch of medicine to persons who are desirous of obtaining such knowledge. The Trust and the Institute were granting certificates to the candidates who successfully complete their training and examination. It is the case of the complainant that he is fully and perfectly entitled to carry on this profession of his and according to him, the decision taken by the State authorities who were of the view that since this system of medicine is not recognised, that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ1318; AIR1997Kant347; ILR1997KAR2828; 1997(3)KarLJ508
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 88, 149(2) and 168;Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 17;Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 338;Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Sections 31 and 96(2) Cases Referred:Paragounda v. Bhimappa, ILR 1992 Kant 3709, (AIR 1993 Kant 103);Narchinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins, AIR 1985 SC 1281;Bishan Devi v. Sirbaksh Singh, AIR 1979 SC 1862;United Indai Fir & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kum. Nagarathna;Indra Singh v. Income-tax Commissioner, AIR 1943 Patna 169;Ram Prakash v. Anand Prasad, AIR 1916 PC 256, 43 Ind App 73 (P.C.);Molar v. Ramparjshad, AIR 1927 Lahore 377;Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire & Gen. Insurance Co., AIR 1989 SC 2002;Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Case AIR 1987 SC 1184JUDGEMENT1. This appeal which arises from the judgment and award dated 26-10-1991. by Sri K. Ramanna (Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VIII. Bangalore City), in M.V.C. HW of 1986. has been preferred by the registered owner/owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR736; 1997(2)KarLJ494
ORDERB.K. Sangalad, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.1988 passed by the Land Tribunal, Manvi in No. LRM/lnam/Aldal/1/87-88 rejecting Form No. 1 filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner filed Form No. 1 for grant of occupancy right in respect of Sy.No. 101 measuring 27 acres 2 guntas stating that it is a Khairat Inam Land. The Land Tribunal rejected to consider the same stating that it has no jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by this, the present Writ Petition arises.3. Sri Shivakumar Kallur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Land Tribunal has got the jurisdiction in view of Section 141 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.4. Section 141 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act reads as follows:-Section 141 - Tenure Abolition Acts - Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of any of the Land Tenures Abolition Acts specified in Schedule II to the Act, in so far as such provisions relate to the conferm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2121
1. The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the first respondent in a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question raised by the petitioner is, whether a settlement entered into between the workers and employers' association, of which association the employer in question is a member, can be held to bind the employer treating him as a cognomina party to the settlement. The factual materials are as follows : 2. The petitioner herein, who allegedly is a member of Binny Karmikara Sangha which is the trade union of the workers of the second respondent industry, contends that a settlement had been entered into between the workers working in various textile mills in the Karnataka State and the Karnataka Textile Mills Association on September 18, 1979 (annexure 'D'). Clause 11 of the said agreement reads thus : 'This settlement will be in force till December 31, 1980. However, the parties agree to resume discussions without prejudice to the rights of b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR642; 1997(4)KarLJ241
B. Padmaraj, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a partition Suit. This Court, while admitting the Appeal has sated that the substantial question of law, which is involved in this Appeal is:-Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has no right to claim share in respect of Suit schedule lands?2. Therefore, untrammeled by the controversy which hinged in the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I confine my consideration only to this question.3. The plaintiff (appellant herein) filed the Suit for partition and separate possession, claiming 204/57th share in the suit properties comprising of agricultural lands, house and open site. The Trial Court decreed the Suit of the plaintiff on 30.11.57., holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 27/48th share in the Suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant No. 7 filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court by its judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR983
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J1. The question raised in this Writ Petition is whether an application under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act made before the Labour Court by the dismissed worker beyond the stipulated period prescribedunder the said section should be rejected as time barred.2. The worker in question was appointed as a conductor on 13.4.1970. It is alleged that he was stopped from duty by the employer with effect from October, 1971. He approached the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act on 16.10.1988 seeking to set aside the action of the employer and for consequential relief. The Management contended inter alia that the application having been made beyond six months prescribed under the statute is time barred and should be rejected on that ground alone. The Labour Court entertained the application and held that the denial of the employment to the worker is illegal. It further called upon the employer to reinstatement the worker with back wages from the date of Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. The petitioners herein impugnes Annexure-A Notification issued by the State Government exempting the 2nd respondent from the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act by invoking its power under Section 36-B of the I.D. Act.2. I have heard Mr. N.G. Phadke, learned Counsel for the petitioners as also Mr. Gururajan. As the management has no objection in petitioners seeking adjudicating their rights before an appropriate Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court if and when the dispute is raised with reference to the termination of the services of the worker and it is submitted by Mr. Gururajan, the learned Counsel for the employer that they will not seek protection of the notification issued under Section 36-B of the I.D. Act, the validity or otherwise of the notification need not be gone into in these proceedings. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ502; 1997(3)KarLJ240
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. Sowri Raju and Mr. K. Suryanarayana Rao for respondent No. 1, that is, the injured as well as Mr. S.V. Prakash, counsel for the owner of the moped, respondent No. 2.2. The only question that has been raised before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the context of the facts of the case is to the effect that the learned Tribunal committed error of law as well as error of fact in holding that the insurance company, that is, the appellant, that is, respondent No. 2 in the claim petition; has failed to make out a case under Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) and as such, there is the liability of insurance company to pay the compensation money to the claimant-respondent No. 1 in the appeal?3. The learned Counsel has submitted that the above finding is based on non-application of the mind to the facts that the owner of the vehicle did not appear in the witness-box as well as he failed to produce the licence. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!