Karnataka Court March 1999 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.
Lt. Col. Ram Autar Sharma Vs. Government of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ256
ORDER1. The grievance of the petitioner who is a member of the Armed Forces and who has put long service and had secured the rank of Lt. Colonel at the stage of superannuating is that his legitimate claim for promotion to the cadre of Colonel has been overlooked by the competent authorities on the basis of adverse non-disclosed remarks in Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as 'ACR' for short).2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was stationed as a Commanding Officer in Assam Rifles. He came under the dual control of Inspector General of Assam Rifles ('IGAR' for short) and the local Commander at Brigade level. The ACR as far as petitioner is concerned, is to be prepared by the Army and by the General Officer Commanding ('GOC' for short) Mountain Division. Under the said Division, there were several Brigades. The petitioner is concerned with 5 and 192 Mountain Brigade. In 1983, when the petitioner was promoted as Lt. Colonel he was posted to command 9 Assam...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Shivashankar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR265]; ILR1999KAR4327; 1999(5)KarLJ700; (2000)ILLJ644Kant
ORDER1. Heard arguments of learned Counsel on both sides.2. This batch of revisions has arisen from the common judgment dated 8th August, 1997 of the lower Appellate Court made in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 12 to 20 of 1997 filed by the respective respondents, whereby their appeals are allowed holding that the I Additional Civil Judge and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur is competent and empowered to entertain and try their applications made under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 ('the Act of 1936', inshort) and reversing the Trial Court's order challenged before it which passed taking a contrary view.3. The subject of controversy in all these revisions relates to the inteivelation of the authority 'Civil Judge and 'Judicial Magistrate I Class, Bijapur' notified by the Government of Karnataka under Notification No. SWL 46 LWA 82, Bangalore dated 5th August, 1991 in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act of 1936, constituting...
Ambanna Vs. Ghanteappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Kant421
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. I find in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the dismissal of the suit for partition, the trial Court has declared to grant the decree giving the following reasons :'Assuming that the defendant had failed to prove the factum of partition, I am of the considered opinion that in this suit no effective decree for partition could have been passed. This is because plaintiff has claimed portion in respect of portions of lands in Sy. Nos. 258 to 261. He has claimed partition in respect of various portions of these survey numbers. It is not in respect of entire survey numbers. Hence, it was necessary for the plaintiff to furnish the boundaries of the area of these survey numbers in which the partition is claimed. In the absence of the boundaries of the areas of these survey numbers, no effective decree for partition could have been passed.'2. When I verified the description given I findit is too vague. Order VII, Rule 3 reads as follows :'Order 7, Rule 3:-- W...
Dr. Vijayalakshmi Ravindranath Vs. National Institute of Mental Health ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ330
ORDER1. Terminer Sans Oyer!', there was determination without hearing, was the plea of learned Counsel for contesting respondent. That is how my earlier order dated 11-3-1999 was recalled. Long arguments had to be gone through over again. Strange but it is true.2. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. The reasons assure an in-built support to the conclusion and the decision reached. Fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons, when an order affects the right of a citizen or a person irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 or the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person. Any action, de...
Smt. Champabai Vs. M. Girijapathy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)860; 1999CriLJ3101; ILR1999KAR3839; 2000(1)KarLJ530
ORDER1. The Inspector of Police, H and B Squad, Corps of Detectives, had filed a charge-sheet against several accused persons including the respondents 1 to 3 on the complaint of this petitioner in Cri. No. 138 of 1992 alleging that all the accused persons were responsible for the custodial death of her son Kamalakar and causing disappearance of evidence, punishable under Sections 120B, 365, 368, 465, 506, 342, 344, 302, 201, 107, 119, 202 read with Section 511 and Section 217 of the IPC. These respondents are accused Nos. 16, 17 and 18. Respondent 1 is the Circle Inspector of Police. Respondent 2 is the Superintendent of Police and respondent 3 is the DIG of Police, Gulbarga. After the case was committed, the learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments on both sides and held that the charge came to be filed without obtaining sanction to prosecute them as required under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. and therefore, they were discharged. Being aggrieved by that order dated 18-10-1997 passed...
Noorulla Vs. P.K. Prabhakar and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: 1999ACJ1419; AIR2000Kant1; [1999]98CompCas725(Kar); ILR1999KAR2725; 2000(2)KarLJ16
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This appeal arises under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The claimant is the appellant before us. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company are respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The principal grievance raised by the claimant is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') has committed an error of law in exonerating the Insurance Company from indemnifying the compensation awarded against the owner.2. On a close reading of the order of reference drawn by the learned Single Judge, the following questions of law seems to require our consideration.-(i) Whether, under Section 95(1) of the Act, the owner of a goods vehicle is required to compulsorily insure against the risk of death or bodily injury of his employees arising out of and in the course of their employment because of the use of the vehicle in a public place?(ii) Whether the insurer will be liable to indemnify ...
Dr. Sri Jachani Rashtreeya Seva Peetha, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant91; ILR1999KAR2561; 1999(5)KarLJ587
ORDER1. The petitioner is a trust. It intends to establish a Teachers Training Institute in Bagepalli Taluk of Kolar District. Since, it can do so only on obtaining recognition under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short, the 'Central Act'), it had submitted an application for the said purpose. But its application for grant of recognition has been rejected by the Southern Regional Committee established by the National Council for Teacher Education (in short, the 'National Council') under its letter dated 1-8-1997 (Annexure-J2) on the ground that it has failed to produce 'No Objection Certificate' as required under Regulation 5(e) of the 'National Council for Teacher Education (Application for Recognition, the Manner for Submission, Determination of Conditions for Recognition of Institutions and Permission to start New Course of Training) Regulations, 1995' (in short, the 'Central Regulations').2. It is a matter of record that though the petitioner...
Mr. P. Siva Naga Raju Vs. Bangalore University and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Kant438
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner was given admission in the Master of Computer Applications Course (in short the 'MCA' course) for the academic year 1997-98 by the 2nd respondent--Principal of the R.V. College of Engineering, Bangalore (in short the 'Institution') which is affiliated to the respondent Bangalore University (in short the University) and as such is bound by the statutory regulations framed by the said University.2. The petitioner was admitted to the MCA Course by the respondent -- Institution on 13 -11-1997. On 19-1-1998, statement of admission was sent to the respondent -- University for its approval. On receiving the same, the respondent University verified the academic papers and found that the petitioner is not eligible for being admitted to the MCA course as per the regulations. Accordingly, a communication to the said effect was made to the institution under the University's letter dated 15-6-1998 (Annexure 'H'). Subsequently, the petitioner was informed by th...
B. Suresh and Another Vs. Bangalore University and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ625
ORDER1. The petitioners in these petitions claim that they and several others were elected to the Senate from the Graduate Constituencies in December 1995, vide notification dated 24-12-1995. As a consequence of such election, the Senate of the Bangalore University was reconstituted under Section 21 read with Section 33(3) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short), vide notification dated 4-1-1996. Subsequently, the petitioners were elected by the Senate to the Syndicate under Section 24(vi) of the Act, vide notification dated 14-5-1996.2. They contend that fresh elections have not been held in regard to the membership of Senate under Sections 21(1), 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act. They submit that having regard to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 33 of the Act, even though the term of office of elected members of the Senate and Syndicate is three years, as the Senate and Syndicate have not been reconstituted, they are entitled tocon...
Dharappa and Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Yadgir, Gulbarga Distr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ326
ORDER1. The petitioners herein have challenged the Order dated 6-11-1997 in case No. REV/ROR/8/69/96-97, in passing whereof, the respondent 1-As-sistant Commissioner while setting aside Mutation Order No. 19 dated 13-5-1997 passed by the Tahsildar, Kodekal, Shorapur Taluk, had directed the Tahsildar, Shorapur to make the entries in the R.O.R. in respect of 16 acres 36 guntas in Sy. No. 43/1 in the name of the respondent 3 (since dead during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court) and further 9 acres 2 guntas in Sy. No. 42/2 in the name of the respondent 2.2. By consent of parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Hence, rule is issued.3. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Patil and Sri R.S. Siddapurkar appearing for the contesting respondent 2. The respondent 1-Assistant Commissioner is represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The respondent 3 is the father of the petitioner and the grandfather of petitioners 2 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »