Karnataka Court June 1998 Judgments
K. Ramanathaiah Vs. Town Municipal Council, Konanur, Arakalgud Taluk, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ697
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for permanent injunction on the basis of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the vacant portion towards north and south of the plaintiff's house came to be decreed by the Trial Court, but on appeal it was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court.2. To the complaint of disturbance to possession of the plaintiff, the defendant's case was that he is the owner of the vacant site and he has put up the stone pillar and also washing stone as the land was used for Sandal Koti. Consequently, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the land.3. Though the Trial Court accepted the purchase by the plaintiff and his possession, the Appellate Court set aside the judgment. The Appellate Court found that the date of the sale deed itself was not given in the plaint and the title is therefore not disclosed. Ex.P. 6 is the sale deed produced by the plaintiff, which shows that Doddaiah had sold t...
Tag this Judgment!Naveen Jayakumar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ413
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 3539 to 3542 of 1996, who are the sons and daughter of one Sri P.B. Jayakumar, have prayed for quashing the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) and final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They have also prayed for quashing of the notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the said Act. It is prayed that the award made in the case on 28-12-1995 also be set aside. The action of the respondents is challenged on various grounds including non-issuance of notice to the petitioners under Sections 4(1), 5-A, 6, 9 and 10 of the Act. It is further contended that as no enquiry has been held in terms of Section 5-A of the Act, the acquisition proceedings were liable to be quashed.2. In their statement of objections, the respondents have submitted that the land belonging to Sri P.B. Jayakumar was sought to be acquired for constructing the office and staff quarters ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar H. Manjare and Another Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Limit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR686]; ILR1998KAR2840; 1998(5)KarLJ237; (1999)IILLJ643Kant
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The appellants while they were in the service of the first respondent as Assistant Security Supervisor in the Security Department of the Factory at Bangalore were issued charge sheets on 28th of July, 1984. They denied the allegations vide their reply dated 1-8-1984. The Deputy General Manager ordered an inquiry as a sequence of which the appellants were dismissed as per the order dated 21-1-1986. The 1st respondent-Management filed an application before the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay (hereinafter called the Tribunal) under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) seeking approval for the action taken against the appellants. The application was rejected vide order dated 1-9-1987 on the ground that one month's back wageshad not been tendered by the management as mandated under the provisions of the Act, the action was illegal. After the rejection of the application of the management, the appellants prayed for being taken back...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathi Gopalakrishna Bhat Vs. Manjunath Gopalakrishna Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ73
ORDER1. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that by order dated 7-1-1994, the learned Trial Court had allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint from which Revision Petition No. 1590 of 1994 now listed along with had been filed. The Trial Court had granted time till 15-1-1994 to incorporate the amendment within specified period. According to the applicant, he could not carry put the amendment on or before 15-1-1994 and so he applied for time for incorporating the amendment to be extended. This application was made on 22-1-1994. It may be mentioned here that revision filed by the defendant namely Civil Revision Petition No. 1590 of 1994 has been dismissed by this Court today i.e. 15-6-1998, Manjunath Gopalkrishna Bhat v Ganapati GopalkrishnaBhat. The Trial Court rejected the permission to extend the time opining that by virtue of provisions of Order 6, Rule 18, it is provided that when a party had obtained an order for leave to amend, but does not amend accord...
Tag this Judgment!Manjunath Gopalkrishna Bhat Vs. Ganapati Gopalkrishna Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ95
ORDER1. This revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 7-1-1994 allowing the plaintiffs application for amendment subject to costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that original suit was for partition filed by the plaintiff-respondent, and in the suit, application for amendment was made seeking to challenge the Will dated 8-4-1972 which is alleged to have been executed in favour of the revisionist i.e., defendant in the suit. Learned Counsel contended that the suit was for partition and for amendment of the plaint and allowing of application for amendment would change the nature of the suit and it amounts to introducing a new case. Learned Counsel contended that the learned Court below acted illegally in allowing the application for amendment, as it is well-settled principle of law that no amendment is to be allowed if it results in changing the nature of the suit and if it has the effect of introducing a new case.2. These...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Rama Setty Vs. A. Gopinath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant186; 1997(4)KarLJ40
ORDER1. In this petition the order dated 6-12-1990 passed by the Chief Judge of Small Causes, Bangalore, in Misc. No. 670 of 1982 filed under Section 144(1) read with Order 21, Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code by petitioner V.K. Rama Setty against respondent-A. Gopinath has beenchallenged.2. Petitioner Rama Setty in his Misc. Petition filed under Order 21, Rule 99 read with Section 144(1) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code prayed for possession (restitution) of the schedule premises which is the upstairs portion of the premises bearing No. 7, Thimmarayasetty Lane, Nagarthapet Lane, Bangalore-2.3. It bears repetition. The present revision petition in which I am going to pass the present order is H.R.R.P. No. 254 of 1992.4. There was a connected H.R.R.P. No. 3863 of 1991 filed by present respondent-Gopinath against present petitioner Rama Setty. This H.R.R.P. No. 3863 of 1991 has been disposed of on 8-6-1998.5. Before coming to the present H.R.R.P., it is necessary to s...
Tag this Judgment!B. Shesha Yadava Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR572]; 1998(6)KarLJ146
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Saratchandra Bijai, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The present writ petition is directed against the communication dated 18-2-1995 (Annexure-D) issued by the 2nd respondent and communication dated 11-1-1996 (Annexure-F) issued by the 3rd respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits.3. It appears that the petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent The Oriental Insurance Company Limited working as a record clerk. Because of his ill-health, he submitted an application dated 3-10-1994 for resignation and the same was accepted under communication dated 22-12-1994 (Annexure-B). In the meantime, respondent-Company framed a scheme for pension namely General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 making it to take effect retrospectively from 1-11-1993. Keeping in view the provisions of the scheme, the petitioner made an application for grant of pension but the same was refused by the respondent under letter dated 11-1-1996 (Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Indian Express Madurai (P) Ltd. Vs. Jeswant J.M. and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ916Kant
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. The important question of law requiring adjudication in this appeal is as to whether a person who is admittedly a Journalist governed by the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Journalists Act) is entitled to the payment of gratuity under the general provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Gratuity Act). The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Gratuity Act have held Respondent No. 1 to be eligible to claim gratuity under the Gratuity Act. The orders passed by the aforesaid two authorities have been confirmed by the learned single Judge vide the order impugned in this appeal. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant management that the orders passed by the authorities under the Gratuity Act and that of the learned single Judge being contrary to law are liable to be quashed. It is contended that as the Respondent No. 1 was not at all e...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Indian Express (Madurai) (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. J.M. Jeswant an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1526Kant
R.P. Sethi, C.J. and M.B. Viswanath, J. 1. The important question of law requiring adjudication in this appeal is as to whether a person who is admittedly a Journalist governed by the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Journalists Act) is entitled to the payment of gratuity under the general provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Gratuity Act). The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Gratuity Act have held respondent No. 1 to be eligible to claim gratuity under the Gratuity Act. The orders passed by the aforesaid two authorities have been confirmed by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned in this appeal. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant management that the orders passed by the authorities under the Gratuity Act and that of the learned Single Judge being contrary to law are liable to be quashed. It is co...
Tag this Judgment!V. Shafeeque Ahmed Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4480; ILR1998KAR3048
M.B. Vishwanath, J.1. In this writ petition (PIL) the petitioner has been convicted and was undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has since been released from the prison after completing his sentence.2. The petitioner has prayed that he and his coprisoners, who fall within the following categories, should be directed to be released by means of an appropriate writ:1) All convicted male prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life even who are governed under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and who have completed 10 years of sentence.2) All convicted female prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, who have completed 8 years of sentence.3) All convicted female prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, who are aged 65 years and above and who have completed 8 years of sentence.4) All convicted prisoners who are either blind or suffering from -deadly diseases like cancer, AIDS, etc, and who have been recommended to be released on medical advice and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »