Karnataka Court October 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Kalavathy A. Katti Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR393; 1999(2)KarLJ394
ORDER1. By the impugned endorsement at Annexure-D the petitioner has been informed that her case has not been considered in the selection list since there was no Kannada at the graduation stage.2. In paragraph 2 of the statement of objections, the respondents have sought to justify the impugned endorsement.3. The stand taken by the respondents is untenable. Annexure-A is the marks sheet of the petitioner. It shows that she has studied Kannada. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of relevant provision of the Karnatak University Act, 1949. Section 176 of the Act prescribes the eligibility for admission to the first year courses. Kannada is one of the languages prescribed therein. Thus, petitioner possess Kannada. However, the respondent has erroneously issued the impugned endorsement without verifying the testimonials produced by the petitioner. Her case should have been considered by the respondents in the light of Annexure-A. Non-consideration of her case for the reaso...
Smt. Zubedabi Vs. Niyaz Mohammad Gulam Mohammad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1326; 2000(3)KarLJ607
ORDER1. Petitioner is the mother of respondent. She made an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. in Cri. Misc. No, 283 of 1995 before the Court below seeking grant of maintenance allowance at Rs. 400/- per month from her respondent-son pleading that though respondent was earning fat income as a mechanic in KSRTC he refused and neglected to maintain her. That application was resisted by the respondent in the Court below who filed his statement of objections contending that petitioner was being maintained by her other sons and therefore he was not liable to maintain her, while admitting the facts that he was one of the sons of petitioner and that he had been working as a mechanic in the KSRTC. It was further maintained by him that his income was just sufficient for the maintenance of his family.2. In the light of evidence adduced by both parties, the Court below reached its conclusion that petitioner had been living with her two other sons and was being paid Rs. 400/- per month ...
Gautam Raj Golia and Another Vs. the Institute of Chartered Accountant ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant324; ILR1999KAR131; 1999(4)KarLJ349
ORDER1. A complaint made by the Article Clerk of a Chartered Accountant has given rise to this complaint of the petitioner before this Court. The facts in brief are as follows:The 1st petitioner is a partner of the 2nd petitioner-firm of Chartered Accountants. The 2nd respondent, who is his own niece, was taken as an Article Clerk under the 1st petitioner on 21-6-1989. She claims to have been working diligently while the 1st petitioner has different story to tell. She, according to him, was a chronic absentee and apparently as an indulgent uncle, the 1st petitioner condoned the absence allowing her to continue and he did not terminate the articleship. She, according to the 1st petitioner, worked for 22 days in a span of two years. It is alleged by the 1st petitioner that at the end of two years, she sought for termination voluntarily; this is the disputed part in the pleading of the 2nd respondent-she claims that a consent letter to terminate was taken clandestinely. Whatever it be, th...
Chandregowda Vs. State by Hoskote Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)266; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)462; 1999(1)KarLJ65
Acts/Rules/Orders:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 313 and 342;Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 31, 45 and 46;Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300 and 302Cases Referred:State v. Sheikh Khader Sheik Buden, 1991(1) Kar. L.J. 584, ILR 1991 Kar. 1874;State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh and Another, (1992)3 SCC 700, (1992)3 SCJ 330;State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lakshmi, 1998 SCC (Cri.) 929;Regrandhe Sarabhayya and Others, AIR 1943 Mad. 408;M. Khivaraj v. State of Mysor, AIR 1955 Mys. 128JUDGEMENT1. The appellant-accused 1 has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 29-5-1995 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in S.C. No. 174 of 1993 convicting the appellant-accused 1 for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. This is a tragic case of a father sacrificing his own son aged about three years under the evil influence of his so-called guru A-l (acquitted by the Tri...
M. Noorulla Shariff Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR355; 1999(2)KarLJ408
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing of Annexure-E issued by the Divisional Commissioner rejecting his application for the nomination as a member of the Wakf Board. The petitioner is an Advocate whose name has been entered on the roll of Advocates maintained by the Karnataka State Bar Council. Consequent on the coming into force of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, published a notification dated 30-4-1998 (Annexure-A) for information of the persons eligible to get themselves registered as voters of the different electoral colleges as provided under Section 14(2) of the Wakf Act. In response to the notification the petitioner filed an application in Form No. 4 and 4-A to get himself registered as voter. The said application was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner stating that the petitioner is not a member of the Bar Council so as to get himself registered as voter of the electoral rolls for the purpose of...
M.S. Angadi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR964]; 1999(4)KarLJ193
ORDER1. The petitioner is a retired Demonstrator of 4th respondent-college. After his retirement, he has furnished all the papers for settlement ofretirement benefits vide Annexure-G dated 17-11-1995. The pensionary claim of the petitioner has been sanctioned and vide Annexure-H dated 28-12-1995 the D.C.R.G., commuted pension etc., had been sanctioned.2. The complaint of the petitioner is that the pensionary benefits have been settled after a delay of 615 days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delayed settlement of pensionary benefits is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others v M. Padmanabhan Nair The submission is that the 2nd respondent should have taken action for settlement of the retirement benefits immediately after the retirement of the petitioner.3. Counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken in paragraph 2 thereof are not convincing since the necessary information had been furnished under Annexure-F da...
J.S. Nagaraj Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chickmagalur and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR419]; 1999(4)KarLJ678
ORDER1. The award passed by the Labour Court rejecting the reference made by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pertaining to the termination of the petitioner, is questioned in this writ petition.2. A perusal of the impugned award disclose that the Labour Court rejected the reference by applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh v Anil Kumar Mishra and Others. That decision pertains to regularisation of services after completion of 240 days work. The Labour Court instead of adjudicating the points referred and the points incidental thereto, proceeded to examine the matter as if petitioner has sought for regularisation of his services. The Labour Court has not at all adverted to the points referred to it. Regularisation was not the point in dispute nor incidental to it. The same should not have been gone into while considering the justification or otherwise of the termination of services of the petition...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Shivakumar and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ338Kant
Gopala Gowda, J.1. The first respondent is an ex-Conductor of petitioners Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. While he was in service, a charge-sheet was issued to him alleging that on October 18, 1984 when he was conducting the bus plying from Shahapur to Sholapur, the bus was checked and it was found that he had not issued rickets to 7 passengers nor collected fare from them. Enquiry was conducted on the basis of the said charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. Based on such report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dismissing the first respondent from service. The first respondent raised a dispute. The Labour Court on the consent of the first respondent held that the enquiry conducted was fair and proper. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Labour Court found that the order of dismissal was severe and disproportionate. Consequently, it directed the petitioners Corporation to reinstate t...
Subhash L. Kurdekar Vs. Tahsildar, Karwar and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1680; 2000(1)KarLJ182
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed against the order made by the Tahsildar purportedly under Section 130 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') directing the eviction of the petitioner from house in which he is admittedly residing. By the order Annexure-D, the Tahsildar directed the eviction of the petitioner from the land in Survey Nos. 181/A/4B and 181/A2 of Kodibag Village. The case that was sought to be made out by the second respondent who was the petitioner before the Tahsildar was that the petitioner herein was in unauthorised occupation of the house and that he was liable to be evicted by the exercise of the power under Section 130 of the Act.2. The petitioner resisted the claim on the ground that the house No. 2130 is not a farm house and is part of the 14 guntas originally owned by Shantharam Govinda Palekar; that he was residing in the house for the last 70 years on a rental of Rs. 6 per annum; that he was sought to be evicted by the landlo...
Dr. S.B. Jigajinni Vs. Hubli-dharwad Municipal Corporation and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ470
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Medical Officer in the first respondent-Corporation. He asserts that the Corporation has no Cadre and Recruitment Rules of its own. Vide Annexure-Q the resolution dated 8-3-1994 the Corporation has adopted the Government Order dated 17-10-1992 by which the Government Order dated 19-9-1991 providing for Time BoundPromotion has been made applicable. The grievance of the petitioner is that eventhough respondents 2 to 13 were juniors to him, they have been given Time Bound Promotion. Hence he has filed LA. I seeking to quash those promotional orders at Annexure-T dated 14-6-1994 and Annexure-V, dated 20-6-1994. The further prayer of the petitioner is to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Surgeon/Senior Health Officer from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. In the circumstances, I.A. I is allowed.2. All the respondents were served. While the first respondent is represented by Counsel, respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »