Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ673
ORDER1. Transfer is an incident of service which does not violate any enforceable legal right of the employee. Courts are therefore slow in interfering with such orders except in cases where the same are shown to be against any statutory rules on the subject or vitiated by mala fides. Decisions on the subject are a legion and I see no need to multiply authority. Reference to Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Others v State of Bihar and Others, Union of India v S.L. Abbas and B. Varadha Rao v State of Karnataka andOthers, should in my opinion suffice.2. The petitioner in this writ petition is working as Manager (finance) in the respondent-Company. He assails in this petition the validity of a transfer shifting him from his present place of posting to Calcutta. The challenge, it is noteworthy, is not based on the violation of any statutory or other provision regulating his service conditions nor is it his case that the authority issuing the transfer order was not competent to do so. What is argued is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1206
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellate. The suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of CTS 5234 as shown in 'ABCD' portion situated at Laxmeshwar and for mandatory injunction for removal of Morum stored in the suit site, was dismissed by the Trial Court and such dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Court on appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Hence, the second appeal.2. Claiming to be the absolute owner in possession, the plaintiff complained unauthorised storing of Morum and Khadi over the area marked ABCD; the defendant while admitting such a storage disputed the title of the plaintiff over the area and alternative claimed to have perfected the title by adverse possession. The adverse possession was claimed on the ground that a portion of the suit property was being used by the genera, public for more than 100 years. The question of limitation also was raised.3. The Trial Court finding that the plaintiff has not proved ownership and possession, upheld ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR960; 1998(2)KarLJ587
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The only son of the erstwhile late Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar, Maharaja of Mysore, is the petitioner before us. He has filed these two writ petitions inter alia, questioning the validity of the Government Order No. GAD 2 PSR 76, dated26-2-1976, passed by the State Government by which it has taken over the possession and management of the Mysore Palace along with adjoining lands and moveables therein (hereinafter called the 'properties') in public interest and the continuance thereof on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 21, 31-A(b) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and for consequential relief of directing the State Government and its servants to restore the possession and management of the said properties to the heirs of late Maharaja.It is a historical fact that the State of Mysore was being ruled by the Wodeyar family. But with execution of the Instrument of Accession by the Maharaja of Mysore on 9-8-1947 and its acceptance by the Governor General of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ620
ORDER1. The petitioner's learned Advocate points out to me that the grantee had died and that the notice taken out on the sou of the grantee is also returned with an endorsement that he is also dead. The case recordsindicate that the whereabouts of this person are not known and it is pointless directing the petitioner to make any more efforts to serve the L.Rs of the allottee. On merits, the petitioner's learned Advocate points out to me that the first necessary ingredient namely the finding that the allottee belongs to SC/ST is not based on any tangible evidence. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Assistant Commissioner has held that the allottee did belong to the Backward Class but to my mind, the manner in which this finding has been recorded is wholly unjustified. Secondly, the original grant certificate has not been produced despite which, the authorities came to the conclusion that the 15 year bar applies. More importantly, where none of the beneficiaries are traceab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR904; 1998(6)KarLJ640
ORDER1. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 25-11-1993 in O.S. No. 7 of 1992 on Issue No. 11, have filed this revision challenging its legality and correctness.2. The petitioner 1 is the wife of the respondent 3 and the petitioners 2 and 3 are their children. That both the petitioners and respondent 3 were staying together till few years prior to the suit. The relationshipbetween petitioner 1 and respondent 3 could not be cordial. Hence the respondent 3 started to stay separately since few years. Just to deprive the petitioners of their lawful right over the joint family property, the respondent 3 began to dispose of the family property. As such O.S. No. 7 of 1992 came to be filed for partition and injunction. 3. Mr. Mogali, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Civil Judge has wrongly approached the case and he has called upon the petitioners to pay the Court fee on the ad valorem of the suit schedule property. On the other hand Mr. D.M. Kulkarn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ1462; 1998(5)KarLJ43
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore, from the Judgment and award dated 17th February, 1989, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, in M.V.C. No. 197 of 1986, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,34,000/- as the total compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the injured-claimant, who has been a student of B.Sc. 3rd year. On 15-8-1985, at about 9.15 a.m., he was going on his cycle from his residence at NIMHANS to his College, while, he was going near Lakkasandra, on Hosur Main Road from East to West on the left side of the road, according to claimant's case, the B.T.S. Bus bearing No. MYF 5842, came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner fell down, sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to NIMHANS. The claimant-respondent, the injured person remained unconscious for 6 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(6)KarLJ557
Acts/Rules/Orders:Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 - Sections 16(1), 17, 20 and 21;High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 13;Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227Cases Referred:M/s. East India Commercial Company Limited, Calcutta and Another v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1962 SC 1893;Nagendrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994(3) Kar. L.J. 320, ILR 1993 Kar. 2361;Nandarayappa v. Director of Agricultural Produce Marketing, Bangalore and Others, 1997(7) Kar. L.J. 664JUDGEMENT G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 7th July, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court quashing the show-cause notice dated 1-7-1997 issued under Section 17(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (in short 'Act') requiring the first respondent, Nandarayappa, to explain as to why he should not be declared disqualified as member of the third respondent, Marketing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1125; 1998(1)KarLJ688
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present appellant is a member of the Jayanagar Housing Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (in short 'Act'). The said Society-respondent 4 has formed a layout called Kadirenahalli Layout (now known as Padmanabha Nagar) for distributing sites to its members.2. The present appellant being a member of the said Society, in the month of August, 1971, made an application for allotment of a site measuring 30' x 45' to the Society with the initial deposits. Accordingly, during the year 1974 site bearing No. 464 was allotted in his favour. Subsequent thereto, as demanded by the Society, the appellant deposited the entire consideration amount being Rs. 7,200/- on 21-3-1981. But admittedly, no document for transfer of land or lease-cum-sale agreement as was required to be executed by the bye-laws of the Society was executed. According to the appellant, despite repeated reminders, he could not get a positive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD(Cri)602; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)439; [1999]98CompCas198(Kar); ILR1998KAR402; 1998(4)KarLJ717
1. This is an appeal against acquittal. The accused-respondent was acquitted by the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in C.C. No. 20696 of 1994 by his order dated 6-9-1995 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The facts, in brief, are that the accused was the proprietor of M/s. Apoorva Steel and Alloys company. The accused has been purchasing M.S. Steel from the complainant on a regular basis. The complainant raised a bill No. 1557 (Ex. P-1) dated 7-4-1993 for a sum of Rs. 1,44,435/-. The complainant in his complaint stated that towards part payment of the said bill the accused had issued a cheque (Ex. P-2) for Rs. 1,00,000/-drawn on Vysya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ683
ORDER1. An important question of law arises for consideration in this writ petition. The question is whether the land vests with the Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1974 even though the Land Tribunal declares such land as not a tenanted land and who is the authority to effect the entries in the RTC in such an event. 2. The petitioner herein is the owner of land measuring 7 acres 9 guntas in Survey No. 18/2 of Teredahalli Village, Haveri Taluk, Dharwad District. The third respondent herein claimed as tenants and filed Form No. 7 to the Land Tribunal, Haveri. However, during the course of enquiry before the Land Tribunal, certain disclosures were made to the effect that the third respondent surrendered the land on his own and that the owner has been cultivating the said land for the last 10 to 12 years. Acting upon this statement of the landlord and the person who claimed tenancy, the Tribunal, Haveri chose to reject the application of the third responden...
Tag this Judgment!