Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR271; 1998(1)KarLJ157
ORDER1. Some of the petitioners, in these petitions, have Sought for regularisation of their services in Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') and a few others have sought for a direction to the Institute not to terminate their services till regular appointments are made in respect of the posts held by each one of them.2. Since common question of law has been raised and facts set out are fairly similar, all these petitions are taken up together for final disposal and disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioners, in these petitions, are working in the cadre of Staff Nurse, Second Division Assistant, Social Worker, Clerk-cum-Typist, Medical Record Technician, Literate Attender. Ward Attender, Lab Attender, X-ray Technician, Assistant Surgeon, Lecturer in Pathology and Lecturer in Radio Therapy in the Institute. The period of service of some of the petitioners commenced during August 1991 and thereafter. The appointment of all the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR809
ORDERG.C. Bharuka and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.1. This belated appeal has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, representing the State of Karnataka under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The delay in filing the appeal is of 148 days. Now, an application has been filed for condonation of the said delay. 2. The affidavit has been sworn by the Section Officer, Law Department, (Lit-ll), Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, stating therein that the date of judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gokak was on 12.6.1995 and though certified copy of the judgment and award was received by the Additional Government Pleader well within the period of limitation and claimed to have been forwarded to the Law Department, under his letter dated 13.7.1995, the same is claimed to have been received by the department only on 29.9.1995 i.e. almost after a lapse of more than two months. Then, on 4.10.1995 it was given to the concerned case worker, who got intermingled the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD(Cri)286; [1998]93CompCas789(Kar)
M.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The brief facts leading to this case are : the respondent filed a private complaint before the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, alleging that the petitioner herein issued a post-dated cheque dated August 4, 1995, which came to be dishonoured on the ground that the drawer of the cheque had closed the account and that the petitioner being the drawer of the cheque has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and this complaint came to be filed after issuing statutory notice as contemplated under the Act. 2. The learned magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence directed to issue process to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application before the same court to recall that order of taking cognizance of the offence. The learned magistrate considering the arguments of both the sides passed a detailed order rejecting the application of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner questioned that orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ127
ORDER1. The first respondent had been working in the petitioner-Modern Mills as an Accountant, having joined the said mill in the year 1952. He filed an application before the Labour Court, Hubli, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short), making a claim thus: He had worked as an Accountant from 15-10-1952 to 19-11-1962 on a salary of Rs. 300/- per month including allowances. On 20-11-1962, he was asked to take charge of the post of Chief Accountant, one G.M. Hemmadi, who stood transferred to the Head Office at Bombay.' He, thus, worked as Chief Accountant with effect from 20-11-1962 to 1-8-1973 and then, from 1-8-1973 to 1-11-1974 as Administrative Officer. During the period he worked as Chief Accountant, he was entitled to receive salary of that of the chief Accountant viz., at the scale ranging from Rs.400/- to Rs. 1,200/- per month. The difference in the wages, therefore, should be worked out and should be directed to be paid to him.2. The content...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1680
ORDER1. The brief facts leading to this case are : the respondent filed a private complaint before the IX Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore, alleging that the petitioner herein issued a post dated cheque dt. 4-8-1995 which came to be dishonoured on the ground that the drawer of the cheque had closed the account and that the petitioner being the drawer of the cheque has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and this complaint came to be filed after issuing statutory notice as contemplated under the Act. 2. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence directed to issue process to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application before the same Court to recall that order of taking cognizance of the offence. The learned Magistrate considering the arguments of both sides passed a detailed order rejecting the application of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner questioned that order before the learned Sessions Court and the 23rd Addl. Cit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ30
1. In this second appeal the suit based on complaint against the Electricity Board must fail and to be held as not maintainable inview of the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976, which is extracted below:'5. Suit to challenge liability to payment.--Where a notice of demand has been served on, the debtor or his authorised agent under Section 4, he may, if he denies his liability to pay the dues, penalty or costs or any part of any of them, institute a suit within six months from the date of service of notice of demand, after depositing with the Prescribed Authority the aggregate amount specified in the notice of demand under protest in writing that he is not liable to pay the same. Subject to the result of such suit, the notice of demand shall be conclusive proof of the various dues, penalty and costs mentioned therein'.2. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not deposited the protest amount into Court before filing the plaint. The fact that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ411
1. The only point raised in this second appeal was whether proper issues have been framed both by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court with reference to the burden of proof. It is true that there was an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 20-11-1970 and the property has been sold to the first defendant on 30-11-1970. The case of the plaintiff was that the father of defendants 2 to 5, was a tenant in respect of the suit property. He purchased the property from the original owner and sold it to the plaintiff. But, despite the fact that the plaintiff sent a notice by certificate of posting to the intending purchaser defendant 1, defendants 2 to 5, apart from an objection made by him before the Sub-Registrar, the sale has taken place and defendant 1 has purchased the property. His grievance that the lower Court by framing the issue in the following fashion, the burden is wrongly cast on him.'Issue 4:--Does plaintiff prove that defendant 1 purchased the suit land from Basappa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)282; 1998(1)KarLJ136
ORDER1. The short point that is involved in this case for determination is whether the Magistrate has committed an error in directing issue of process to these petitioners without prior sanction of the Government to prosecute them as contemplated under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act.2. The learned Counsel has vehemently argued that the allegations made in the complaint if taken as true in totality, the offences alleged against these petitioners are during the course of discharging their official duty. Therefore, prior sanction from the Government was necessary without which the prosecution launched is invalid and calls for interference by this Court, lest it would lead to abuse of the process of Court. In support of his argument he also placed reliance on a decision in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v N.P. Mishra, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held:'Section 197 is neither to be too narrowly construed nor too widely. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR453; 1997(4)KarLJ685
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. These two Writ Petitions are registered on receipt of the case records in the two appeals in LRAA 182/87 and LRAA 187/87 by the Registry when the said appeals stood transferred to this Court on abolition of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Puttur. In the said two appeals, the common order dated 13.11.87 passed in case No. LRY.694/74-75 by the respondent No. 2 - Land Tribunal, Sullia granting occupancy right to the contesting respondent No. 1 herein in part of the claim. When the first appeal is by the tenant to challenge the impugned order in so far as the same related to rejection of the claim, the other appeal is by the landlord in so far as the same related to grant of occupancy right. 2. I heard the Learned Counsel Sri S.S. Sripathy and Sri K. Krishna Bhat appearing for the petitioners in the petition and counter petition respectively (They also represent the contesting respondent in the respective petitions). The learned High Court Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)389; 1998CriLJ1490
ORDER1. This petition is filed u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 5-3-1997 passed by the Court of the VII Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore, in Crime No. 55/97 issuing non-bailable warrant, against this petitioner. Notice of this petition is served on the learned S.P.P. 2. Heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323 and 506, IPC. All these offences are bailable. Accordingly the learned Magistrate was pleased to release them on bail accepting cash surety offered by the accused persons. He has not imposed any conditions nor he has given any date for the accused to appear before the Court. The charge-sheet has not yet been filed. But it appears the learned Magistrate has taken up the case on 5-3-1997 and directed to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. The said order is questioned in this petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Mag...
Tag this Judgment!