Karnataka Court August 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.
Dr. T.K. Puttaswamy Gowda Vs. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Boar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ531
ORDER1. The petitioner has been appointed as a Medical Officer under the respondent-Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ('the Board' for short). At the material time in 1983 he was posted at T.G. Halli. On 18-4-1983 he was suspended in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. On 4-5-1983 he was served with article of charges. Thereafter pursuant to an enquiry he was removed from service under order dated 23-2-1984 (Annexure-F) passed by the Chairman of the Board. The order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 2227 of 1985. This Court by order dated 8-11-1991 quashed the order of removal on the ground that the Chairman of the Board could not have acted as a disciplinary authority (Annexure-G). Writ appeal No. 261 of 1992 filed against that order, was disposed on 11-12-1992 (Annexure-H). The Division Bench held that the Chairman was the appropriate disciplinary authority but since it was found that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles...
Smt. Ananthamma Vs. the Managing Director, Co-operative Spinning Mills ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC328; 2000ACJ166; [1999(81)FLR260]; 1999(1)KarLJ356; (1999)ILLJ1053Kant
1. Appellant is the widow of the deceased Ramulu, who has preferred this appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dated 14-11-1985 made in Case No. WCA/F-4/81-82 dismissing her application for grant of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act' for short).2. It is not in dispute that appellant's husband late Ramulu was employed and was working as a Realer in the Spinning Mill of respondent 1, On 8-12-1979 at 8,45 a.m. when he was attending his work as such in the factory premises his co-worker [ Ramesh ] S/o Bhaskar heard voice of the deceased saying 'Ham'. Then, Suresh sensed the danger in the health condition of the deceased. Therefore, with the permission of the in charge shift officer of respondent 1-factory, he took the deceased along with him to the City bus stop at Hubli to take him to the Hospital. While they were waiting for a bus at the said bus-stop, the deceased once again gasped his breath saying 'Ham' and collapsed th...
M.B. Gangadharappa Vs. Bommagondappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ254
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for partition and possession of the plaintiffs 1/4th share was dismissed by both the Courts below and hence this second appeal.2. Claiming to be the only son through the 1st wife of Doddachowdamma of the defendant and contending that the defendant took the second wife by name Channaveeramma, the plaintiff claimed a share in the joint family properties as 1/4th. The defendant denied the paternity; the contention was that Channaveeramma is the only wife and the suit was resisted.3. Both the Courts found that the plaintiff has not proved the marriage of his mother with first defendant and consequently the plaintiff was non-suited. The short point and the question of law raised is therefore in this case is whether the denial of paternity of the father, the first defendant to the plaintiff is true and acceptable? It is significant to notethat in the written statement, the marriage is alone denied and whether the boy was born to that lady through t...
Boregowda and Another Vs. C.D. Devaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ496
1. The defendants challenge the grant of decree of damages of Rs. 1,000-00 granted by the Courts below on rendering on concurrent finding of facts.2. The damages came to be claimed by the plaintiff on the ground that a notice of partition issued on 20-12-1985, the defendants replied calling the plaintiff is a cheat and he has been involved in many cheating cases and suffered imprisonment and he is having bad character addicted to bad habits and involved in antisocial activities. The above statements have created mental agony to the plaintiff and his reputation is badly affected in the society and the reply notice has been given due publication and the allegations made therein are all false and are made with an intention to defame the plaintiff in the eye of public and thus they had badly affected his reputation and status in the society and therefore the plaintiff is claiming damages of Rs. 1,000/- from the defendants.3. Denying the allegation made and amount mentioned therein and the ...
K.R. Mangunath Vs. Smt. Veena
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC525; 1998(6)KarLJ346
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is the husband's appeal against judgment and order dated 8-4-1992 passed by the Family Court in M.C. No. 29 of 1988 dismissing the petition for dissolution of the marriage.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner-K.R. Manjunath filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of the marriage dated 11-5-1973 between him and the respondent by granting a decree of divorce. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place on 11-5-1973 at Kaiwara, Chintamani Taluk, Kolar District and both were leading a marital life. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children, a daughter by name Rashmi and a son by name Sriram aged about 13 years and 8 years respectively. The respondent used to create unpleasant situations and frequently quarrel with the petitioner's mother and they shifted their residence in the year 1978 to the respondent's sister's house and after chain of movement from one...
indar Singh Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ356
ORDER1. The petitioner submitted an application on 27-6-1998 as per Annexure-A to the Executive Engineer of Bangalore Development Authority seeking permission to construct temporary pendal to conduct a Textile Mela for a period of one month in the site situated opposite Kamakya Theatre in B.S.K. III Stage, Bangalore, belonging to the respondent. On the said application the Executive Engineer of the B.D.A. intimated the Manager, Canara Bank, B.D.A. Extension Counter to accept the payment of Rs. 15,000-00 towards ground rent vide Annexure-B. On 14-7-1998 the petitioner deposited the said amount as per the Challan at Annexure-C. It is stated that as informed, the petitioner gave an undertaking on 13-7-1998 that he will not put up any permanent structure and will not cause any disturbance to the neighbours. Thereafter the petitioner started putting up temporary sheds on the site in question. According to the petitioner, he has made all the arrangements for starting the Mela. At that junctu...
Dr. Anand Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ722
ORDER1. Heard Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent 2 and Sri M.H. Ibrahim, learned Government Pleader who had taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3.2. By this petition, petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing letter Annexure-E dated 14-11-1997 and endorsement Annexure-G dated 1-1-1998 bearing No. hu.da.na.pra.yovi.vinyas.4: 97-98, 3512. He has also sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing 2nd respondent to release the layout land duly approved as per application dated 26-11-1997 vide Annexure-F. Petitioner has further sought for any such other order or direction or writ as in the circumstances of the case this Court deems fit and proper.3. The facts of the case as per allegations made in the writ petition are that, the petitioner claims that the property in dispute has been ancestral property and it had been purchased by the petitioner's father Sri N.B...
Smt. Vimalamma Ballal and Another Vs. Mahabala Shetty and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ394
ORDER1. I have heard the two contesting Counsels in these two petitions as also the learned Government Advocate. The point involved is a straight but rather interesting one namely the question as to whether the proviso in Section 48-A(3) of the Land Reforms Act which was introduced by Act 1 of 1979 and which provides that the Tribunal for valid and sufficient reasons may permit the tenant to amend the application is to he construed as being wide enough to allow an amendment which increases the claim, after the cut-off date namely, 30-6-1979. The controversy hinges around the tenant's Form No. 7 which was originally filed on 21-12-1974 and once again on 1-12-1975. Five lands were shown in that Form No. 7 and we are concerned only with two of them i.e., Sy. No. 175/4 which area was set out as 33 cents and Sy. No. 32/1-A which area was originally shown as 2 acres 6 cents. There was some litigation between the parties which had come upto this Court on an earlier occasion and the case has b...
State by Superintendent of Police, C.O.D., Bangalore Vs. Thammaiah and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ53; 2000(3)KarLJ293
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the Superintendent of Police, COD, Bangalore, questioning the order passed by the learned Magistrate in directing the petitioners to investigate and report the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C.2. Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent 3.3. The learned State Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that COD is not a police station and the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to refer the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. directing the COD to investigate into the matter in a private complaint. He also submitted that under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. the regular police station which comes within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate only should be directed to investigate into the offence. According to him, COD can take up investigation only on the basis of the matter referred to by the Government. Even if the Police Officer of any police station is not investig...
K. Bhagavandas Rai Vs. Vijaya Bank, M.G. Road, Bangalore and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ283
ORDER1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7583 of 1998 is serving as an Officer in Scale-II in the respondent-Vijaya Bank. The petitioners in the remaining three writ petitions are the unrecognised trade unions of the Officers of the Bank. Their prayer is to restrain the respondent-Bank from enforcing certain clauses of the Transfer Policy envisaged in its Circular No. 267 of 1991, dated 24-12-1991 as amended by Circulars No. 82 of 1996, dated 10-4-1996 and No. 35 of 1998, dated 12-2-1998 being An-nexures-B, D and E respectively of W.P. No. 7583 of 1998.2. Justifying the rotational transfers of the Officers of the Banks, the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Finance, Banking Division has stated on affidavit that.-'rotational transfers were found necessary in the Banks to ensure that longer stay of any person at a particular place may not leadto unhealthy relationship with private parties as many frauds in the Banks have reportedly taken place due to such nexus. Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›