Karnataka Court September 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.
Salian S.T. Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1581Kant
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner in this case is seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash annexure-F dated January 29, 1992, urging the various legal contentions.The undisputed facts are that, the petitioner ought to have retired from service by attaining the age of superannuation with effect from July 31, 1989. The respondent-bank, Under Regulation 20(3)(c) of the Regulations, extended the service of the petitioner and the petitioner was not permitted to retire on his attaining the age of superannuation and the services were retained until the enquiry against the petitioner in respect of certain charges were concluded and on passing the final order in that regard. By order dated July 29, 1989, on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were completed against the petitioner subsequent to that order the disciplinary authority passed an order of suspension on July 29, 1989, suspending him from service for the reason that disciplinary proceedings were pending against h...
Abdul Hameed and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1626
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel who represent the petitioners in all these four writ petitions, as also the learned Government Advocate who represent the respondents. All the learned advocates have been heard on merits.2. The earlier orders passed by this Court indicate that there are almost one hundred persons who are similarly situated to the petitioners and I had afforded the petitioners' learned Advocate the facility of presenting a single petition on their behalf, if they so desire, for two reasons. First, because these are very poor persons. Secondly, because the cause of action is identical, but more importantly because the Government Authorities have passed orders against all these persons and only those who have obtained reliefs from the Court would get the benefit of the Court orders. The learned Counsel conveyed the position to some of the remaining persons but for a variety of reasons, none of them are before this court. This order is therefore con...
D.L. Sadashiva Reddy Vs. P. Lala Sheriff and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR666; 1998(6)KarLJ42
ORDER1. These writ appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27th May, 1998 in Writ Petition Nos. 5726 of 1998 and 5772 to 5774 of 1998, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that rival operators are not entitled to question the assigning of timings for the service of the other respondents.2. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2546 of 1998 who holds a stage carriage permit on transfer from the 5th respondent in the writ petition sought to implead himself as a party to the Writ Petition No. 5773 of 1988, but without disposing of the application, the order impugned was made.3. Writ Appeal No. 2666 and 2667 and 2694 and 2695 of 1998 are filed by Gajanana Motor Transport Company challenging the assignment of timings etc., on the ground that their services are affected by the timings.4. Writ Appeal Nos. 2668 of 1998 is by the applicant who sought to implead himself in Writ Petition No. 5726 of 1998 but the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›