Karnataka Court August 1998 Judgments
Basappa Vs. Syndicate Bank, Bidar and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant341; [1999]95CompCas822(Kar); 1999(3)KarLJ649
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.2. This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 17-3-1994 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bidar, in the matter of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Misc. Case No. 51 of 1989). The present petitioner had been the defendant in O.S. No. 142 of 1985 against whom decree has been passed in the suit vide judgment dated 19-11-1987/21-11-1987. The appeal had been preferred on 28-3-1989. There was a delay of one year and four months and eight days. In the affidavit it had been stated that the appellant-applicant who is the present petitioner had been continuously ill and under the treatment of Doctor from 15-11-1987 to 27-3-1989. The applicant had produced the medical certificate of the Doctor. The defendant had also been examined and cross-examined by the learned District Government Pleader on the question whether he was a pauper. It is mentioned in the judgment of the learned Civil J...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Vs. C. Chandrashekaran and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: ILR2000KAR94; 2000(4)KarLJ416
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. This is a tenant's revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. One C. Chandrashekaran (hereinafter referred to as 'landlord') filed an eviction petition against the petitioner herein (hereinafter re1 ferred to as tenant') in HRC No. 283 of 1989, on the file of the learned First Munsiff, Mysore under clause (h) of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), in regard to a non-residential premises. The landlord contended that he is an Engineering Graduate with specialisation in Electronics and Communications, that he had no avocation and therefore he wanted to open a shop in the petition schedule premises ('premises' for short) to deal in electrical and electronics consumer items. The eviction petition was, thus, to meet the personal requirement of the landlord, It is not in dispute that neither the pleading nor evidence of the landlord put forth the requirement of any other members of landlo...
Tag this Judgment!The Mangement of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Air Craft Division, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR435]; 1999(5)KarLJ148
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20-1-1995 passed in CWC-3/FC/CR-9 of 1992 by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Division III, Bangalore, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant-Company is having its factory at Vimanapura, Bangalore. The deceased Ramaknshna, who is the husband of the first respondent herein was working in the respondent-Company, He was working in Manufacturing Inspection (Aircraft Division) from 8-11-1966 to 26-12-1991. On 26-12-1991, he died. As such, the first respondent filed an application along with other respondents for compensation. The Commissioner after conducting the enquiry, passed the impugned order holding that the respondents are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 62,588/- with other benefits.3. Mr. R. Gururajan, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was suffering from ill-health, as such, he was given treatment and looking to the ailment he had suffered, he was given lighter work. As such, it could n...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Dharwad Vs. Sm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ642
1. This second appeal preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation of India is confined only to rate of interest payable after filing of the suit in a mortgage deed. When the Corporation paid contractual rate of interest 15% per annum i.e., contractual rate of 12 1/2% plus 2 1/2% default interest from the date of suit till the date of payment. But the Courts below have granted only 6% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment.2. The question in this second appeal is therefore, whether the Court has got power under Order 34 Rule 11 of the CPC and what is the scope of interaction of under Order 34, Rule 11 of the CPC. 3. Order 34, Rule 11 gives a certain amount of discretion to the Court so far as interest pendente lite and subsequent interest is concerned and it is no longer absolutely obligatory on the Courts to decree interest at the contractual rates upto the date of redemption in all circumstances even if there is no question of the rate being penal, excessive...
Tag this Judgment!Chitradurga District Mazdoor Sangh (Registered), Chitradurga Vs. the M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR554]; 1999(1)KarLJ358; (1999)ILLJ650Kant
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respondent 4 filed petitions in this Court praying for setting aside the orders produced with the petitions as Annexure-A and B on the ground that as its establishment of providing security personnel to various organisations was not included in the schedule of employment nor any specific notification was issued in that behalf, the impugned orders were without jurisdiction. The writ petitions were allowed, holding that the workmen of respondent 4 were not entitled to the grant of minimum wages. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge directed the payment of a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid as ex gratia to the workmen by the Principal employer. The aforesaid amount was directed to be paid within four weeks, which on receiptby the authority under the Act was to be disbursed equally to th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Channabasappa and Others Vs. the Kuvempu University, B.R. Project, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ52
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Devadas, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent Kuvempu University and Smt. V. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State Government.2. The petitioners are working as Second Division Assistants and Typists in U.B.D.T. College of Engineering owned by the Government. By the order at Annexure-A passed under Section 68(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, the said college was transferred to Kuvempu University. As per condition No. 2 incorporated in the said order, an option was given to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the said college to either accept the services of the University or remain in the services of the Department of Technical Education. The petitioners opted to remain in the services of the Government.3. Subsequently, they wanted to withdraw their options which were refused under Annexure-D. Later on under notification dated 12-8-1997, Government passed orders of their transfer...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Ramaswamy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Sagar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ239
ORDER1. Heard Sri Mohan Shantangoudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.H. Ibrahim, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This revision arises from the judgment and order dated 22-12-1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sagar, dismissing the revision petitioner's application for amendment of the judgment and decree by giving the additional benefit.3. The facts of the case in brief are that, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in this case was issued on 23-7-1979 acquiring the petitioner's land. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 7-8-1985. An application for reference under Section 18 was made and the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Civil Judge, Sagar, passed an award under Section 18 read with Section 23 on 17-3-1992. As per the original award, the petitioner has not been given the benefit of the provisions of Section 23(1-A). The petitioner filed an application for the mod...
Tag this Judgment!High Court of Karnataka Vs. K. Sankaran Nayar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)638; ILR1999KAR674; 1999(6)KarLJ645
ORDERP. Padmaraj, J.1. The respondents 1 to 5 are the printer and publisher, the Managing Director, the Chief Editor, the Resident Editor and the Journalist employed on the paper of a daily newspaper known as 'The Indian Express'. In the issue of the said newspaper dated 8-1-1998 of the Bangalore Edition, a leading article was published or appeared at the front page under the heading or under the caption 'Sethi v Saldanha: Battle in High Court'. The said news item also carried the photographs of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the learned Single Judge of this Court with their names printed under each photograph as 'Sethi', and 'Saldanha'. The news item that was published at the front page in the Bangalore Edition of the daily newspaper, 'The Indian Express' dated 8-1-1998, with a caption, 'Sethi v Saldanha: Battle in High Court', is reproduced hereunder:'BY BOBY KURIAN Bangalore, January 7: A direction from the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice to the High Court Judges asking them not ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Giri Thimmaiah Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant32
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This Civil revision under Section 115 of CPC. arises from the order passed by the District Judge, Chitradurga, dated 28-9-1993 in Misc. Case No. 31/90 in proceedings under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13/1885.2. The facts of the case in the nut shell are that the petitioner has been the owner in possession of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 160/2, 159/2, 31/1, 158/2 and 23/1C measuring about ten acres in total at. T. Nagenahalli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. Petitioner on his land had grown Coconut Trees, Tamarind Trees, Neem Trees etc., all were fruit bearing trees. During December, 1989, the respondents with a view to lay 220 KV transmission line between Hiriyur and Gowribidanur passing through the said lands of the petitioner, issued notice dated 2-12-1989 and thereafter cut and removed 48 fruit bearing coconut trees, 4 tamarind trees, 8 Neem trees and according to the petitioner certain other trees ...
Tag this Judgment!Malleswaram Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Senior Labour Inspector
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR326]; ILR1999KAR650; (1999)ILLJ1326Kant
R.P. Sethi, C. J.1. The Common question of law requiring adjudication in these petitions is as to whether the employees of the petitioners Co-operative societies were entitled to the benefit of Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act? The claim of the workmen is based upon the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka under the Minimum Wages Act specifying the scheduled employments. It is contended on behalf of the employees that as shops and commercial establishments have been notified as schedule establishments, the societies being shop or commercial establishment as defined under Clause (u) and (e) of the Karnataka Shops and commercial Establishments Act, 1961, they were entitled to the benefit of Minimum Wages and the Payment of Gratuity Act.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to take note of various provisions of the enactments sought to he relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. Minimum Wages Act (hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »