Karnataka Court March 1998 Judgments
India Hobby Center (Private) Limited, Bangalore Vs. Jabbar Ahmed (Dece ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2975; 1998(3)KarLJ563
ORDER1. The petitioner, in this petition, is a tenant, which is a private limited company having its business in sale of Toys and Plant Seeds at various parts of the country, like, Bangalore, Madras, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi.2. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 29th of January, 1991 made in H.R.C. No. 10856 of 1987 by the learned II Additional Small Cause Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Judge'), directing its eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. A few facts which have a bearing for the disposal of this revision petition, may be stated as hereunder.(a) One Jabbar Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') who is the father of respondents 1 and 2 and husband of respondent-3 herein, had instituted eviction proceedings against the petitioner seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petition sched...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sangamma Patil Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Author ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ7
ORDER1. Office reports that respondents have been served. The respondents in this writ petition appear to have been served. On behalf of the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore appearance hasbeen filed by Sri N.K. Patil. Notice had been served on the respondents in the first week of September 1997. No counter affidavit has been filed. 2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner applied for allotment of residential site and site No. L-97, in Section No. 6, Agara, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Bangalore was allotted in the name of petitioner i.e., petitioner, petitioner's husband and her daughter jointly. Thereafter an agreement of sale was entered with respondent 1 on 28-6-1991 and possession was handed over to the petitioner allot tees on 16-9-1991. It so happened that one of the joint owner allot tees Sri C.N. Patil died and the site stood in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that there were many beneficiaries and no basic amenities were available a...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subramanya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ1171
Chidananda Ullal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.4.1994 in MVC No. 156 of 1990 passed by the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chikmangalur (henceforth in brief as 'MACT'). The appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge the finding of the MACT that the appellant insurance company is also liable to pay compensation to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, claimants.2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, Mr. M.U. Poonacha and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, claimants, Mr. S.N. Keshavamurthy. The respondent No. 1, driver and the respondent No. 2, owner, having been served with notices of the appeal had remained absent before this court. I have also perused the case records.3. The short point for my consideration in this appeal is whether the justification on the part of the MACT to fasten the liability on the appellant insurance company is there or not.4. The learned counsel for th...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sundaram Vs. General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Canara Bank, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ159
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 14th May, 1991 in confirming the orders made by the disciplinary authority dated 20th June, 1990 in imposing a minor penalty under the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 ('Regulations' for short). 2. Brief facts are, petitioner is an employee of the Canara Bank ('Bank' for short). In the year 1984, he was holding the post of an officer at Tirunelveli Junction branch of the Bank. As evidenced by Annexure-A to the petition, a show-cause notice dated 17-1-1987 came to be issued by the Divisional Manager of the Bank directing the petitioner to show-cause to the allegations of omissions and commissions said to have been committed by him while working at Tirunelveli Junction Branch of the Bank. The details of which, I will notice a little later. The notice was replied and allegations were denied by the petitioner by his letter ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Achayya (Since Deceased)by L.Rs Vs. Syed Mukthan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ147
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 6th October,1987, delivered by IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OriginalSuit No. 2243 of 1981, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of contract as well as granting the decree for permanent injunction, directing the defendant not to sell or dispose of the suit property in any manner and also restraining him from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.2. That the plaintiff's case, as per plaint allegations has been that originally on 18-10-1977, defendant had entered into an agreement to sell, in respect of plaint schedule property, for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-and that agreement was reduced into writing. According to the plaintiff's case, on 18-10-1977, plaintiff had made an advance payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the defendant-appellant and subsequently on 21-11-1977,plaintiff again paid and defendant received from him a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, towards sale price and executed the receipt. Plaintiffs Case ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. B. Kamala Vs. the Director of Municipal Administration, Governmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ106
ORDER1. The Municipal Council, Hospet consists of 36 members which includes the local M.L.A. Some of the members of the Municipal Council moved a motion of 'No Confidence' against the petitioner who is thePresident of the Town Municipal Council, Hospet. The said motion was placed before the Town Municipal Council for consideration on 31-01-1998. In the meeting of the Municipal Council 24 members voted in favour of the motion and 12 members voted against the motion. This resolution has been challenged in this Writ Petition.2. Sri Kallemulla Sheriff, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the M.L.A. who is a member of the Municipal Council tinder Section 11(1)(c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act is to be excluded for the purpose of calculating 2/3rds of the total number of members as provided under Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and if he is excluded then the resolution is not carried by 2/3rds of the total number of...
Tag this Judgment!Wipro Information Technology Limited, Mysore and Another Vs. the Colle ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(114)ELT814(Kar); 1999(4)KarLJ90
ORDER1. Validity of notice issued under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, dated 21-12-1990 is assailed in this writ petition in respect of collection of duty on loading, unloading and handling charges. It is submitted that the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, as amended by notification dated 5th July, 1990, is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and the respondents have no jurisdiction to realise the duties in excess of the actuals.2. Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of computer systems and peripherals for which large quantities of components are imported and the duty is paid on ad valorem basis. Provisions of Rule 9were not in existence prior to 1988 and it was by Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, the rules came into force on 16th August, 1988. Prior to framing of these rules, there was lot of litigation and it appears that in o...
Tag this Judgment!Cotton Corporation of India Limited,bangalore Vs. G.C. Odusumath and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2553; 1998(6)KarLJ181; (1999)ILLJ19Kant
1. These appeals have arisen out of a common order dated 19-9-1995 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition Nos. 28462 and 28463 of 1993 coupled with Writ Petition Nos. 17698 and 17709 of 1995 dismissing all these petitions of the appellant-corporation. By the said petitions the common interim orders dated 24-5-1993 and 21-1-1995 made by respondent 3-Labour Court in Reference Nos. 377 of 1988 and 380 of 1988 were challenged by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation').2. The facts of the industrial dispute leading to the aforesaid references pending before the respondent-Labour Court are as stated under:The workman Sri G.C. Odusmath, who is respondent 1 ('R1' for short) and Sri C.M. Vidyananda, respondent 2 ('R2' for short) were appointed by the corporation as Junior Cotton Purchasers and they had been serving as such 'workmen' of the Corporation. In the year 1986 both were deputed to Bellary town in the State of Karnataka as Cotton Purchaser and Jr. Cotto...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sundaram Vs. General Manager Disciplinary Authority, Canara Bank an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4005
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 14th May 1991 in confirming the orders made by the disciplinary authority dated 20th June 1990 in imposing a minor penalty under the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 ('Regulations' for short).2. Brief facts are, petitioner is an employee of the Canara Bank ('Bank' for short). In the year 1984, he was holding the post of an officer at Tirunelveli Junction branch of the Bank. As evidenced by annexure A to the petition, a show cause notice dated 17.01.1987 came to be issued by the Division Manager of the Bank directing the petitioner to show cause to the allegations of omissions and commissions said to have been committed by him while working at Thirunelveli Junction Branch of the Bank. The details of which, I will notice a little later. The notice was replied and allegations were denied by the petitioner by...
Tag this Judgment!G. Shashikumar Vs. the Management of Indian Telephone Industries Limit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ202; (1999)ILLJ226Kant
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Workman-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th June, 1997, insofar as it modifies the award of the Labour Court reducing the back wages from 50% to 10%.2. Appellant was the employee of Indian Telephone Industries, (hereinafter referred to as 'the management'). Appellant was charge-sheeted by memo dated 1-8-1986 for an act of misconduct committed by him. On 22nd July, 1986 at about 2.25 p.m. while he was going out of his factory through the Colony Gate No. G-5 after closure of 'A' Shift, he was checked by the security staff at the gate and was found in possession of old curtain spring measuring 97 inches. On a further search he was found to be in possession of a small paper packet containing 3 drill bits in his inner waist band pocket of his trouser. Appellant submitted his explanation to the charge which did not satisfy the management. An enquiry was ordered to be held agains...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »