Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR778; 1997(3)KarLJ319
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is, whether the use of the words 'detrimental to the interests of the Bank' can be construed as a stigma on a probationer whose probation was terminated without extension.2. The facts that have culminated in the filing of the writ appeal, are-The appellant-Veeranna was appointed as a Probationary Officer in the respondent-Bank on 3.8.1984 with effect from 1.1.1985. His probation was terminated in terms of Regulations 8(1) and 8(3) of Staff Service Regulations, 1983. On being terminated, the appellant filed an appeal to the Board of Directors, which was dismissed. To quash (1) the order of termination, (2) the order of rejection of the appeal by the Board, and (3) two memos dated 3.6.1986 and 2.9.1986 wherein he was called upon to reimburse a sum of Rs. 2,000/- which is said to have been misappropriated by him, he filed the Writ Petition. The contention of the appellant that the use of the word 'detri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2889
ORDERB.N. Mallikarjuna, J. 1. As the order questioned in all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, common judgment would dispose of all the 52 petitions.2. Order dated January 12, 1996 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka (one of the respondents in all the writ petitions) is challenged by various co-operative societies in State in these 52 Writ Petitions. State of Karnataka is the other respondent.3. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by impugned order, in exercise of the power under Section 30-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (the 'Act' for short), directs the societies in the State which is earning profit to contribute 5% of the profit to the funds to be called as 'Sahakara Kalyana Nidhi.' It is stated that there is need to constitute such fund to provide certain benefits to such of those persons who have contributed in the development of co-operative movement in the State and who have rendered selfless service. It is also stated that the direction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1329
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 5.12.1995 passed by the State Government in exercise of its purported powers under Section 56(1) of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (in short 'the Rules') and the notification of the even date issued under Rule 4 of the said Rules. The said order and the notification has been filed as Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition. By the impugned order the State Government has sought to relax the terms and conditions of quarrying lease specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 permitting grant of quarrying lease in respect of non-specified minor minerals, namely, sand, laterite and solly stones, from the forest areas for the purposes of construction of residential buildings and other developmental works. By the impugned notification the State Government has empowered the respective Deputy Conservators of Forest, to grant such quarrying licences in the areas falling within their jurisdictions.2. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR792; 1997(3)KarLJ140
ORDERG.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. I have heard Sri A. Keshava Bhat, Learned Counsel for the petitioner at great length.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land measuring about 16 guntas in Sy.No. 2/1 of Challaghatta village, Varthur Hobli. The same was proposed for acquisition for the benefit of the 4th respondent-Society. The final notification is dated 21.2.1989, copy of which is marked as Annexure-B.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent-Society has been branded by this Court in NARAYANA REDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, AIR 1991(3) Kar. 2248 as a Society consisting of large number of bogus members and is indulging in real estate business. Therefore, the Learned Counsel submitted that though the notification in acquiring certain lands for the benefit of the 4th respondent in the said petition was different from the one which is assailed in this petition, the fact that the activities of the Society have been held to be undesirable it is sufficient t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1999)ACC175; 1998ACJ477; II(1998)DMC503; 1998(4)KarLJ172
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 21-1-1989, delivered by Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Labour Officer, Hubli, disposing of an application for compensation under Sections 3/4 and 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. Relying on the statement of Smt. Sarojini, the Tribunal has observed that the appellant, who was applicant 7, in the claim petition, has been the kept mistress of late Shankar Ismailappa and applicant 8, in the claim petition, is the minor son of applicant 7. The two applicants 7 and'8, have come up in appeal, as no compensation has been awarded in' applicant 8's favour, nor any share has been given in compensation awarded and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only to applicant 7 as compensation.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsels for the other respondents.4. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR825; 1997(3)KarLJ57
ORDERM.B. Vishwanath, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the four petitioners (sons of late K. Hanumantha Rao) against the first respondent - Sree Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha, the second respondent - Tahasildar, and the third respondent - State, praying that the order passed as per Annexure-T dated 5.9.1996 by the District Judge in M.A. (VOA). 37/1984 allowing the appeal filed by the present first respondent-Sangha and setting aside the order dated 24.5.1994 passed by the Tahasitdar (as per Annexure-N), regranting the petition land bearing S.No. 31 measuring 4 acres 17 guntas situated at Kondethimmanahalli village, Nidagal Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, (Inam land) in favour of the present writ petitioners should be set aside.2. Annexure-U is the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri, in H.O.A.1/67-68. The Assistant Commissioner has ordered that the present first respondent is eligiblefor regrant under proviso to Section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act and dismissed the claim...
Tag this Judgment!