Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2301; 1998(1)KarLJ493
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for contesting respondent 2. Sri S.V. Jagannath, Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for respondent 1 and respondent 3. Accordingly he takes notice. Heard the learned Government Advocate also.2. In this writ petition, the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur, as per Annexure-A (marked in Writ Petition No. 2874 of 1979) dated 5-10-1978 has been challenged. The present petitioner is the landlord.3. As per Annexure-A, the Land Tribunal in respect of the total extent of 2 acres 4 guntas of land in Survey No. 184/1 situated in Thavargi Village, Hirekerur Taluk, granted 1 acre 4 guntas to present respondent 2-Hanmanthappa Shivalingappa Ajjappanavar. The balance of one acre was granted to Hanmanthappa Dyavappa Ajjappanavar. The entire extent belonged to the petitioner.4. So far as the grant of occupancy rights to Hanmanthappa Dyavappa Ajjappanavar, the petitioner has not challenged it. This writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR707
K. Venkataswami, J.1. Both these appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 25 of 1976 dated 29.11.1983.2. The facts are given below. The defendants in Suit No. 158 of 1973 on the file of the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Gurdaspur, are the appellants in these two appeals. The plaintiffs, contesting respondents herein preferred the said suit under the following circumstances. 3. One Khushal Singh was the owner of an extent of land measuring 270 kanals 9 marlas in Village Gandhian, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. The abovesaid land after consolidation was found measuring only 264 kanals and 7 marlas. The suit property is to the said extent of 264 kanals and 7 marlas. The original owner, Khushal Singh, died issueless on 5,9.1950. Subsequently, the suit lands were mutated in the name of one Durga Devi, widow of deceased Khushal Singh on 19.7.1952. The said Durga Devi purporting to fulfil her husband's desire of taking in adoptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2253; 1998(1)KarLJ741
ORDER1. Petitioner passed his B.E. degree examination in February, 1994 from the Bangalore University. He claims to have taken the entrance examination for admission to Post-Graduate course in M.E. Computer Engineering and Science ('CE and S' for short). The third respondent informed the petitioner that he was provisionally selected to M.E. degree course. Petitioner paid the required fees on 30-1-1997 and was admitted to M.E. (CE and S) course and has been attending the classes regularly. When the matter stood thus, third respondent-college issued a memo dated 12-6-1997 (Annexure-H) cancelling his admission to M.E. (CE and S) course on the ground that his basic B.E. degree was in Electronics and not in Computer Science and therefore he was ineligible for admission according to the Regulations. The said memo is based on the communication dated 6-6-1997 (Annexure-J) from the second respondent to first respondent-University with a copy to third respondent directing cancellation of petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2500
ORDERG. Patri Basavana Goud, J.1. These are the two appeals arising out of the order of the learned Single Judge dated October 18, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 9194 of 1990. Abdul Gani had been employed in the Visweswaraiah Iron and Steel Limited, Bhadravathi. Workman Abdul Gani is the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 7 of 1996 while the management is the appellant in Writ Petition No. 4362 of 1995. 2. Workman applied for leave for 20 days from October 5, 1971. He did not report for duty after expiry of leave. His claim that he had submitted an application on November 4, 1971 for extension of leave was disputed by the management. Taking recourse to Clause XII of the Certified Standing Orders relating to leave, management, by the memo dated November 4, 1971, intimated the workman about his having lost lien of his job leading to termination of his services. Workman raised an industrial dispute in this regard at ID No. 52 of 1981 before the Labour Court at Bangalore. Admittedly, the termination ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ58
ORDER1. These are the two appeals arising out of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18-10-1995 in Writ Petition No. 9194 of 1990. Abdul Gani had been employed in the Visweswaraiah Iron and Steel Limited, Bhadravathi. Workman Abdul Gani is the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 7 of 1996, while the Management is the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 4362 of 1995.2. Workman applied for leave for 20 days from 5-10-1971. He did not report for duty after expiry of leave. His claim that he had submitted an application on 4-11-1971 for extension of leave was disputed by the management. Taking recourse to Clause XII of the Certified Standing Orders relating to leave, management, by the memo dated 4-11-1971, intimated the workman about his having lost lien of his job leading to termination of his services. Workman raised an industrial dispute in this regard at ID No. 52 of 1981 before the Labour Court at Bangalore. Admittedly, the termination had not been preceded by any domestic enquiry. Labour ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1047; 1998(4)KarLJ350
ORDER1. The matter is posted in Preliminary Hearing 'B' group. By consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. While working as a clerk in the Cauvery Grameena Bank, Mysore, petitioner was served with a charge-memo dated 13-11-1992. In that, there were 10 charges against the petitioner. All these charges pertain to misappropriation of funds of the Bank. This charge-memo had been replied by the petitioner denying the allegations made in the charge-memo. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, had appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo. The enquiry officer after holding a detailed enquiry in accordance with the rules of natural justice, had submitted his report and the findings thereof to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC615; 1998ACJ392; ILR1997KAR2812
Chidananda Ullal, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 26.7.91 in MVC NO.365/89 and MVC No. 366/89 passed by the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chickmagalur, whereby the claims of the husband and wife, who both suffered injuries in a common road accident, were allowed in part.2. We heard the Learned Counsel for the appellants Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah and Sri N.S. Rajanna for the respondent No. 2. We have also perused the case records including the records of the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, in brief referred to herebelow as MACT for convenience.3. When these two appeals were argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah, an important question arose in the midst as to whether it is permissible for the Claims Tribunal to award a sum beyond a limit of Rs. 15,000/- under the head 'Medical Expenses' as set out in second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3248
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. Defendants are the appellants before this court. The money suit filed by the Plaintiff Bank has been decreed by both the courts below. Hence this appeal.2. The only contention raised before me is regarding the interest. The objection of the counsel for appellant is that the courts below have failed to consider the decisions reported in H.P. KRISHNA REDDY v. CANARA BANK, : AIR1985Kant228 and BANK OF INDIA v. KARAM RANGE RAO, ILR 1985 Kar 4283, ILR 1985 Kar 1277 is to the following effect;'The Courts in other words, cannot exercise jurisdiction under the Usurious Loans Act or any other law relating to indebtedness for the purpose of giving relief to any party. This appears to be the intent of the legislature in enacting the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983. Section 21A has, however, no bearing on the jurisdiction of Courts to give relief to an aggrieved party when it is established that the Bank in a particular case has charged interest in excess of the limit p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR101
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions, own different properties situated in the Gandhinagar area of the City of Bangalore. These properties are assessed for the purposes of property tax under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Special notices proposing to revise the annual ratable value of the properties were served upon, the petitioners by the Assistant Revenue Officer of the Corporation. The notices called upon the petitioners, to either pay the amount of taxes determined therein or else approach the Commissioner if they disputed their liability. The petitioners appealed to the Deputy Revenue Officer, who Confirmed the demand and declined to interfere. A further appeal was then filed by the petitioners to the Administrator exercising the powers of Taxation Appeal Committee. The Administrator interfered but only to the limited extent of reducing the annual ratable value of the properties by 5% of what was fixed by the Assistant Revenue Off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1997]107STC549(Kar)
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. Assessment for the year 1975-76 was completed against the petitioner by the assessing authority by his order dated 4th of April, 1978. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner and succeeded in having the matter remitted back to the assessing authority for a fresh look. A fresh order of assessment was then made on 6th of January, 1990. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order also, which was accepted in part by the appellate authority by its order dated 20th of May, 1990. Dissatisfied the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 31st of July, 1990, which was disposed of on 8th of October, 1993. In the meantime, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance) summoned the records of the assessment proceedings and the appellate order on 26th of July, 1990 and decided to issue a notice to the petitioner on 8th January, 1991 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assess...
Tag this Judgment!