Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR709]
ORDER1. The petitioner in this petition is presently working as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the respondent-Bank. For the misconduct stated to have been committed by the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It appears, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, has found the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept the Report of the Enquiry Officer and instead decided to reopen the domestic enquiry by his order dated 28-1-1991, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F to this petition. In this petition the order at Annexure-F passed by the Disciplinary Authority rejecting the enquiry report and directing reopening of the disciplinary proceedings has been called in question.2. Sri Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the Disciplinary Authority in not accepting the Report of the Enquiry Officer and directi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. The petitioner in this petition is presently working as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the respondent-Bank. For the misconduct stated to have been committed by the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It appears, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, has found the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept the Report of the Enquiry Officer and instead decided to reopen the domestic enquiry by his order dated 28-1-1991, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F to this petitioner. In this petitioner the order at Annexure-F passed by the Disciplinary Authority rejecting the enquiry report and directing reopening of the disciplinary proceedings has been called in question. 2. Sri Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the Disciplinary Authority in not accepting the Report of the Enquiry Officer and di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1549
Saldanha, J. 1. The short point of law that really falls for determination in this appeal centres around the question as to where serious charges of murder and attempt to murder were made, a conviction can be virtually founded on the evidence of a solitary eye-witnesses. Though there is no reason why in criminal trials Courts should insist on multiple witnesses, it has become the order of the day to list the various heads of evidence and to virtually recoil backwards in these of the situations where the evidence is minimal. Once again, it brings us back to the age old principle of Judicial wisdom which prescribes that is the intrinsic quality of the evidence and not the quantity or mass that matters. 2. The incident in question took place at about 8.00 p.m. on 24-5-1993 at Hotegali village within the limits of Chittakula Police Station. The police station is at a distance of about 10 k.ms. from the village. PW 5 Smt. Bhagi was sitting in her house talking to her son Chandrahasa who was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1940; 1997(3)KarLJ388
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. In the course of execution proceedings certain properties were brought to sale. The properties were put to sale by auction and the auction was conducted on 28.10.94. The auction purchaser deposited the amount on 29.10.94. The executing Court accepted the bid and confirmed the sale by an order made on 18.11.1995. This order is called in question in this petition. The principal contention put-forth before this Court is that the petitioner challenged the same on various grounds and before accepting the bid and confirming the sale, the executing Court ought to have examined whether there was due compliance with the terms of Order 21 Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 21 Rule 84 of the Civil Procedure Code states as follows:'Deposit by purchaser and resale on default: (1) On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration, of twenty-five per cent, on the amount of his purchase money...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1997)143CTR(Kar)190
P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. :In this petition, the petitioners have sought for a direction quashing the order dt. 19th July, 1989, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D; and for a further direction to the 2nd respondent to issue No-objection Certificate to them as provided under sub-s. (3) of s. 269UL of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be set-out as hereunder :(a) The 1st petitioner in this petition who is the owner of a piece of land located within the Bangalore urban agglomeration area, had entered into an agreement to sell the said piece of land to the 2nd petitioner as per the terms and conditions fully set-out in detail in the agreement dt. 20th April, 1989. A copy of the said agreement has been produced as Annexure-A to this petition.(b) Pursuant to the agreement Annexure-A, the petitioners filed a statement as required under sub-s. (3) of s. 269-UC of Chapter XX-C of the Act, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1433
G. Patribasavana Goud, J.1. In WP. No. 1888 of 1997 filed by the Employees Union of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., and in the connected Writ Petitions filed by others under Article 226 of the Constitution, constitutional validity of Section 2(9)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act' for short) as amended by Act 29 of 1989, and the validity of Rule 50 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 ('Rules' for short), together with Rules 51 and 54 thereof, as amended by the Employees' State Insurance (Central)(Second Amendment) Rules, 1996 under Notification dated 23.12.1996, are questioned.2. While issuing Rule Nisi and passing a conditional order of stay, Learned Single Judge, by his order dated 4.2.1997, referred the said Writ Petition No. 1888 of 1997 and the connected Writ Petitions to the Division Bench. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('Corporation' for short) has also preferred Writ Appeal No. 1436 of 1997 as against the said conditiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant306; ILR1997KAR1561; 1997(3)KarLJ691
ORDER1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel on both sides.2.1. The only question of law that arises for determination in this revision is: whether the purchase of the house properly of the judgment-debtor named P. K. Attavar (hereinafter called 'JDr. Attavar') in Ex. Case No. 787/81, made by (he petitioner Smt. B. V. Vasantha (hereinafter called the 'auction purchaser') on 28-6-1982 at the auction sale is hit by the principle of lis pendens?2.2. This question stands answered by the Court-below in the affirmative by its impugned order dated June 20, 1988 passed in Ex. Case No. 693/82 rejecting the auction purchaser's objection therein to execution of the decree for specific performance of the contract of sale that was obtained by the respondents-Decree Holders therein (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs') against the JDr. Attavar in respect of the said house property. The legality of this finding of the Court-below stands challenged by the auction-purehaser.3.1. The undisputed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2573; [1998]230ITR454(KAR); [1998]230ITR454(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for a direction quashing the order dt. 19th July, 1989, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D; and for a further direction to the 2nd respondent to issue No-objection Certificate to them as provided under sub-s. (3) of s. 269UL of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be set-out as hereunder : (a) The 1st petitioner in this petition who is the owner of a piece of land located within the Bangalore urban agglomeration area, had entered into an agreement to sell the said piece of land to the 2nd petitioner as per the terms and conditions fully set-out in detail in the agreement dt. 20th April, 1989. A copy of the said agreement has been produced as Annexure-A to this petition. (b) Pursuant to the agreement Annexure-A, the petitioners filed a statement as required under sub-s. (3) of s. 269UC of Chapter XX-C of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ529
Acts/Rules/Orders:Constitution of India - Article 226;Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - Section 49;Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 - Rule 3Case Referred:Karnal Leather Karamchari Sanghatan v. Liberty Footwear Company (Regd.) and Others, AIR 1990 SC 247JUDGEMENTR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Respondents 6 and 7 were Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha respectively of Neralur Grama Panchayat which comprises of 19 members. On 7-9-1996 a written notice to move a motion of no-confidence against the said respondents was given by more than V3rd of the total number of the members of the Panchayat. Elected members of the Panchayat were intimated about the motion and for convening a Meeting for consideration of the said motion on 10-10-1996. In the Meeting 15 out of 19 members of the Panchayat participated. Fourteen members voted for the motion and 1 member voted against the motion. The motion was declared to have been passed by majo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000ACJ228
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. These appeals arise from a common judgment and award dated 30.8.1993, given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (Mr. S.B. Chanal) Member & I Additional District Judge, Mangalore in Motor Vehicle Case Nos. 94, 205 and 256 of 1989, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,16,000 in M.V.C. No. 94 of 1989 in favour of claimants of that case to be shared equally and compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,08,000 in M.V.C. No. 205 of 1989 in favour of the claimant jointly against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the case and for a sum of Rs. 30,400 in M.V.C. No. 256 of 1989, but it directed the insurance company to indemnify the owners of the vehicle and fastened the liability for payment of the compensation on the respondents in each motor vehicle case, jointly and severally. The amount of compensation in each case has been awarded as mentioned above with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of applic...
Tag this Judgment!