Karnataka Court October 1998 Judgments
Capt. George Martis Vs. New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ284
ORDER1. Petitioner was a Commander in the Indian Navy. On certain charges, enquiry was conducted against him. In all there were four charges pertaining to causing accidents. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that the petitioner was not responsible for the first charge. The other three charges were held to have been proved. Thereafter, penalty of reduction of pay by 5 stages was imposed on the petitioner for a period of one year with cumulative effect under the impugned order at Annexure-H. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order. The Appellate Authority reduced the penalty to reduction of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect by the impugned order at Annexure-L. The petitioner is seeking to quash both the orders in this writ petition.2. Statement of objections is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 justifying the impugned orders.3. It is not necessary to refer to the various contentions urged by the learned Counsel on both sides. It is seen fr...
Tag this Judgment!Auma (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4224
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioner impugns Annexure-G order passed by the Appellate Authority, the 2nd respondent herein, in exercise of its powers conferred under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts relevant for the purpose of this case, in brief, reads as follows:2. The petitioner is engaged interalia in the manufacture of electrical actuators and gear boxes. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, Annexures-A, A1, A2 and A3, alleging that the petitioner has utilized modvat credit earned in respect of electrical actuators for discharge of duty on manufacture of gear boxes and that the same was irregular and illegal. After the petitioner responded to these notices, the questions raised were adjudicated adverse to the petitioner and Annexure-B, B1, B2 and B3 orders were made. Aggrieved by the said orders of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal before the 2nd respon...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rauf J. UppIn Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR463]; 1999(2)KarLJ203; (1999)ILLJ1235Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner, who was working as Badali Conductor, was terminated by the first respondent. He approached the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court rejected the petition of the petitioner holding that he had not completed 240 days of service and therefore he is not entitled to the relief. In those circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the order of termination at Annexure-B and the order of the Labour Court at Annexure-D with a further prayer to direct the first respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, backwages and other consequential benefits.2. Respondents have not filed counter.3. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner placed evidence on record and relied upon the decisions and the Circulars referred to in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the Labour Court did not consider them properly.4. A perusal of the impugned order of the Labo...
Tag this Judgment!North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Central Offices, Hubl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR433]; 1999(4)KarLJ654
ORDER1. The petitioner-Corporation is challenging the impugned award at Annexure-E dated 12-12-1998 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore, directing reinstatement of the first respondent with 50% backwages with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.2. The impugned award is challenged on the ground that the Labour Court should not have held that the dismissal of the first respondent from service was not justified having regard to the proved misconduct. The further attack is, awarding of 50% backwages was not warranted as the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the time-barred claim. Smt. Renuka, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal was dated 8-1-1996. Under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the dispute should have been raised within six months from the date of order of dismissal. In the instant case, the dispute was raised on 31-10-1996 and this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Labour Court. Smt...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vasudeva Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ116
Acts/Rules/Orders:Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 8, 14, 18, 19, 32, 38-B, 65, 69, 70 and 71;Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1994;Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 - Rules 3, 4(2), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 14(3);Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 6 and 7Provincial Insolvency Act, 1963;Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226;Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976;Housing Act, 1957 - Section 105(1);Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 60(1) - Order 33, Rule 1;Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909;Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920;Provincial Insolvency (Karnataka, Extension and Amendment) Act, 1962;Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 4, 6, 7, 10, 28, 35, 36, 37 and 60Cases Referred:S.P. Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149;Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D 458;Reed Bowen and Company, (1...
Tag this Judgment!Hanamappa and Others Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ539
ORDERVishwanatha Shetty, J. and Gopala Gowda, J.1. The question, which we are required to answer in this civil revision petition, is as to whether the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Deputy Commissioner to the Civil Court beyond three years and ninety, days from the date of the reference application made, is barred; and whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a reference and consider the claim of the claimant for adjudication for payment of higher compensation.2. A few undisputed facts that are relevant for disposal of this revision petition, may be set out as under:(a) The petitioner, in this revision petition, is the owner of lands bearing R.S. Nos. 8/3-A and 48/2-B of Bijjur Village, Muddebihal Taluk, Bijapur District. The said lands were acquired by the State for public purpose as provided under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and an award came to be passed in LAQ/CR-6/78-79 on 28th of March, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Venkareddy Parasareddy Alawandi and Another Vs. Secretary, Revenue Dep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ600
ORDERThe petitioners in these writ petitions filed applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'LA Act'), for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award passed by the learned Civil Judge in LAC Nos. 65 and 66 of 1985, dated 17-3-1988 before the Assistant Commissioner, Savanur Sub-Division, Savanur, who has been appointed as Deputy Commissioner under Section 3(c) of the Act. The said applications were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 3-5-1990 as belated as the reasons assigned for condoning the delay are not satisfactory. These orders are called in question by the petitioners in these writ petitions.2. Sri Katarki, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Assistant Commissioner was not right in recording the finding that the reasons assigned by the petitioners are not satisfactory without considering the reasons assigned for the delay in filing the applications as the said reasons const...
Tag this Judgment!The University of Agricultural Science Employees House Building Co-ope ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4597
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The appellant is a registered Housing Co-operative Society. It is aggrieved by the order dated 14-2-1997 passed in W.P. No. 2919 of 1992 and analogous cases. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has quashed the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') by which the lands of the private respondents were sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of housing sites by the appellant-Society. 2. The short question of law involved in this writ appeal is as to whether the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was barred by limitation under clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act? 3. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was first published in the two local dailies viz., Prajavani and Sanjewani on 31-3-1990 and 5-4-1990 respectively. Thereafter, the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 12-4-1990. According to the learned Single Judge, since there wa...
Tag this Judgment!Hanamappa and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4071
P. Vishwanatha Shetty and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ. 1. The question, which we are required to answer in this Civil revision petition, is as to whether the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Deputy Commissioner to the Civil Court beyond three years and ninety days from the date of the reference application made, is barred; and whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a reference and consider the claim of the claimant for adjudication for payment of higher compensation. 2. A few undisputed facts that are relevant for disposal of this revision petition, may be set out as under: (a) The petitioner, in this revision petition, is the owner of lands bearing R.S.No.8/3A and 48/2B of Bijapur village, Muddebihal Taluk, Bijapur District. The said lands were acquired by the State for public purpose as provided under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and an Award came to be passed in LAQ/CR-6/78-79 on 28th of March 1980. Th...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Akbar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas576(Kar)
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. Notice to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 issued. Cover returned as not claimed. Under these circumstances, services held sufficient. The appeal itself is taken up for hearing.2. The State Bank of India, the plaintiff is the appellant, is aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for recovery of money based on mortgage.3. O. S. No. 131 of 1985 on the file of the Civil Judge, at Kolar, for a suit filed for recovery of money, namely, Rs. 70,787.45 together with interest at 13.5 per cent. This money was granted on a cash credit facility and the suit schedule properties were given as security and equitable mortgage has been created for due repayment of the money advanced. Cash credit facility was available for Rs. 30,000 and medium term loan of Rs. 50,000 was also granted by the bank. The balance was confirmed by the defendants as per the documents dated September 25, 1984, June 23, 1984, and April 10, 1985, and the revival letter dated August 26, 1982. The seco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »