Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3138; 1997(4)KarLJ577
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These three appeals arise out of an order made by the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition by which the New Mangalore Port Trust ('Port Trust' for short) sought to fill up the post of Deputy Conservator for Port Trust by direct recruitment. The recruitment to the various posts including that of the said Deputy Conservator is governed by the provisions of the New Mangalore Port Trust (Recruitment of Heads of Departments) Regulations, 1991. The point principally canvassed before the learned Single Judge was that the selected candidate did not possess the essential experience of 10 years as Master of Foreign going ship or in pilot age and dredging in a major Port Trust. The learned Single Judge took the view that the experience of Master of foreign going ship or in piloting can not be read cumulatively to find out the extent of experience. He felt that the experience should be as a Master of foreign going ship for 10 years or in the alternative, experience in pil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(3)KarLJ202
ORDERFacts in W.P. Nos. 3957 and 14671 of 1997 1. Petitioner-society (also referred to as 'MES' for short) applied to the Bangalore University ('University' for short) under Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) seeking permission and affiliation for starting a part-time Law College for imparting instructions for a three year LL.B. degree course. The Local Inspection Committee of the University inspected the college on 23-5-1996 and submitted a report recommending grant of affiliation. The Academic Council recommended grant of affiliation on 10-6-1996, subject to the condition that the new college should obtain the prior approval of the Bar Council of India. The Syndicate, at its meeting held on 18-6-1996 approved the resolution of the Academic Council. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the State Government under Section 53(5) of the Act. The petitioner gave several representations for acceptance of recommendation.1.1 The Bar Council of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1247
H.N. Narayan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1993 passed in O.S.No. 91 of 1976, renumbered as O.S.1262 of 1980 on the file of the VI Addl.City Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. The Suit was initially filed against the 1st defendant - A. Bhaskaran for a judgment and decree to vacate and deliver possession of the suit schedule property which is a non-residential hotel premises in the prime location in Bangalore viz., Brigade Road and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as damages being arrears of rent from 1.1.1976 to 31.5.1976 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- p.m., for enquiry for future rent under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, for further directing the 2nd defendant who subsequently impleaded himself as 2nd defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff and also an enquiry against him for future mesne profits with costs and such other reliefs.2. This matter has a chequered long career having regard to the prox...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR383; 1998(5)KarLJ128
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for declaration in respect of three items of the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession, was partly decreed by the Trial Court (in respect of item 1 only) in O.S. 286 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Arasikere on 7-11-1987. Appeal preferred therefrom by the plaintiff again in R.A. 1 of 1988 on the file of the Civil Judge, Arasikere came to be dismissed on 25-1-1988. The plaintiff is for the second appeal as appellant before this Court.2. The plaintiff claimed declaration of title in respect of three items of properties, on the basis of purchase from one Manjunathaiah, and according to him the defendants were trying to interfere with his possession of the property and also threatened to cut Honge and Babul trees raised in item 2 of the property and hence he prayed for declaration and injunction.3. In the written statement, the defendants contended that the plaintiff did not purc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2440; 1997(4)KarLJ725
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The petitioner, in this petition, is the owner of the premises bearing No. 5, III Cross, Puttaranganna Layout, Pipe Line, Malleswaram, Bangalore. In this petition, she has challenged the correctness of the order dated 29th of April 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B, passed by the third respondent confirming the order dated 29th July 1992, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, passed by the first respondent treating the premises, referred to above belonging to the petitioner, as having become vacant and allotting the same in favour of the second respondent.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the premises in question was not vacant at any time and the same was in her juridical possession having been occupied by her younger sister one Dr. Savitharani and her husband. According to the petitioner, since the said sister of the petitioner, who is a Doctor by profession, and her husband, who is an Engineer, used to go to wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2687
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. An unfortunate and unusual situation has arisen in this case which I shall briefly record. The appellants are the Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the K.E.B) and the respondent No. 1 M/s. Bharath Conductors Private Limited are one of the contractors of the K.E.B. The respondents had entered into a contract with the K.E.B. for the supply of certain aluminium conductors and it is the case of the Respondent No. 1 that there was an abnormal and unprecedented jump in the prices of the basic raw materials which according to them made it impossible for them to execute the contract on the original terms. They therefore referred the matter to the Chief Engineer who under normal circumstances was the authority to decide matters relating to price escalation and it is their grievance that the officer concerned did not take any decision in the matter. Therefore the respondent No. 1 decided to invoke the remedy provided under the arbitration clause at which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR151
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. 'Law is the king of kings, mightier than sword. For with its help even the weak may triumph over the strong.'(Kathopanishad)With that fond hope and faith in this institution and realising the present is darker, but it is darkness before dawn-the inevitable sunrise, petitioner, an ex-Army man, trained as a paratrooper in 17, Para Field Regiment, Artillery, thrown into silence sufferance and unheard condemnation is knocking at the doors of this Court, because he feels that he has grievance and this Court would grant him the necessary relief.2. Petitioner has commenced the judicial proceedings with the filing of petition dated 28.3.1994. It is his case before this court that he is eligible and entitled for payment of disability pension as provided under the Pension Rules. This claim is rejected by the opposite party on the ground that the petitioner has not been invalidated from service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by Military Servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR181]; ILR1997KAR2791; 1998(1)KarLJ10
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This appeal arises from the order made by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16598 of 1994. One Shivakumar was working in the establishment of the appellant. Disciplinary action was initiated against him by an order made on 6-8-1992 and various charges were added to it or amended by letters dated 10-3-1993 and 28-10-1993. It is the contention of the appellant that the said Shivakumar had admitted by a letter written by him that he was forced to utilise the funds of the bank to meet his medical expenses. When the inquiry was still pending, the said Shivakumar expired on 26-11-1993 as a result of cancer the disease he was suffering from. It was stated that the said Shivakumar had misappropriated a sum of Rs.59,000/-; that he was due to the appellant-Bank towards house building loan to an extent of Rs. 1,54,000/- and a consumer loan of Rs.7,400/- and Rs.14,200/- towards the vehicle loan. The respondent claimed for payment of amounts due towards Provident ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999CriLJ247; 1999(4)KarLJ500
ORDER1. Two questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition can at the very outset be stated thus:--(1) Is the Bureau of Investigation Karnataka Lokayukta competent to register and investigate cases involving offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without the directions of the Lokayukta asking it to do so? (2) If the answer to question No. 1 be in the negative should the registration of the case against the petitioner and investigation conducted by the Bureau of Investigation till now be quashed? The questions arise in the following backdrop.2. The petitioner is a supertime scale officer in the Indian Administrative Service. On the 6th of June, 1994, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore is said to have received credible information about the alleged acquisition of assets by the petitioner disproportionate to the known sources of hisincome constituting an offence punishable under Section 13(1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]108STC85(Kar)
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. Goods vehicle No. CRO 8887 called at the sales tax check-post at Nipani and was checked by the respondent-Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. The vehicle was found transporting from the State of Maharashtra, stove burners covered by a bill issued by M/s. Mayur Stove Industries, Bombay, in favour of the petitioner. The consignment was physically verified, which revealed that there were two types of burners being transported one described as No. 2 burners and the other as No. 3 burners. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was of the view that 685 pieces of No. 3 burners and 657 pieces of No. 2 burners were not covered by any valid documents. A notice under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, was accordingly issued and served upon the driver of the vehicle asking him to show cause why a penalty of Rs. 8,000 be not imposed on account of the goods in question being without proper documents. The driver it appears expressed his unwillingness to avail of t...
Tag this Judgment!