Karnataka Court April 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.
P.S. Panduranga Rao Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2852; 2000(3)KarLJ94; (2000)ILLJ363Kant
ORDERH.L. Dattu1. Tell me when do I retire? Is it at the age of 58 years or 60 years is the issue posed by an officer of a Nationalised Bank in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Brief facts are: petitioner was appointed as a Clerk at the Vijayawada Branch by the respondent-Central Bank of India. After satisfactory completion of period of probation, he was confirmed in the post with effect from 1-7-1967. At the relevant point of time, the service conditions of the Award staff in the Bank was governed by the Industrial Bipartite settlement. By virtue of the settlement, the age of retirement for clerical staff was 60 years.3. Personal inconvenience and father's serious illness necessitated petitioner to make a representation dated 28-10-1968, requesting the responsible officers of the respondent-Bank seeking transfer from Vijayawada Branch to any of the Branches in Bangalore of the respondent-Bank. That request had been turned down by the respondents for valid r...
Bhimappa @ Bhima Naik Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ520
ORDER1. For the purpose of disposing of these cases, we narrate the facts in W.P. No. 5912 of 1996 out of which W.A. No. 654 of 1998 arises.2. The appellants are the quarry owners and they were granted quarrying lease and lease deeds were executed. Due to some delay before the quarrying started, some of the appellants had to apply for renewal of the lease. As no order was passed, writ petitions were filed in this Court. Meanwhile, the rules were amended. Therefore, this Court directed the appellants to file a application as per the amended rules and directed the respondents to consider the applications within a time frame. Accordingly, applications were made. As the renewal applications were not considered, again writ petitions were filed and there was an interim order in favour of the appellants. Meanwhile, by an order dated 31-1-1996, the application for renewal of licence for quarrying made by the appellants was rejected by the authorities concerned. In the counter filed by the resp...
Bpl Group of Companies Karmikara Sangha, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR159]; ILR1999KAR3520; 2000(1)KarLJ355; (2000)IILLJ641Kant
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions the petitioner is BPL Group of Companies Karmikara Sangh, first respondent is the State Government, respondent 2 is the Commissioner of Labour, respondent 3 is the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer and the 4th respondent is the management of various units of the company. The petitioner is aggrieved by the prohibition of strike by the workers of 4th respondent under Annexure-A and the order of reference at Annexure-B referring the industrial disputes raised by the petitioner-Union for adjudication. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of reference on the ground that all the points of dispute raised by it have not been referred by the Government. Hence, the common prayers in all these writ petitions is to declare the impugned orders at Annexure-A and B as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, to direct the first respondent to refer all the points of dispute by issuance of a fresh order of reference and to grant interim relief under Se...
Smt. Prameelamma and Others Vs. Kamavar Reddy Venkan Gouda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3232; 1999(4)KarLJ700
ORDER1. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel on both sides. 2. These two revisions have arisen from the common order of the Trial Court passed in O.S. No. 1 of 1988 pending on its file allowing the plaintiffs I.A. 8 filed under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC and I.A. 11, filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, thereby permitting him to amend the plaint as prayed and implead the petitioners in CRP No. 2562 of 1996 as defendants 2, 3 and 4 respectively, in the suit. 3. The impugned order is challenged by the impleading defendants, as also by the original defendant who is the petitioner in CRP No. 2538 of 1996. 4. The said O.S. No. 1 of 1988 was instituted under Section 92 of CPC by respondents 1 to 5-plaintiffs, against petitioner in CRP No. 2538 of1996 alone for recovery of Rs. 42,700/- with interest from the said defendant towards the realisation of the sale proceeds of the property belonging to the Registered Charitable Public Trust named 'Sree Swamy Thrivikramananda Ash...
Oswal Minerals Vs. Mysore Calcides and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas100(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. I have heard the learned advocates on both sides.2. This petition was admitted on December 17, 1998, and the several subsequent endorsements in the order sheet are eloquent enough to indicate that this court gave the respondents a very long leeway by deferring the order for advertisement. Normally, under the scheme of law the advertisement has to follow the admission of the petition as a matter of course but the reason why I deferred it was also because the respondents' learned advocate stated that his clients as businessmen would like to explore the possibility of resolving the outstanding issues.3. The scheme of the Companies Act, 1956, is such that, if an outstanding liability is not cleared despite the service of statutory notice a presumption arises against the company and this presumption being a rebuttable one, it is open to the company to satisfy the court even in the course of the proceeding among other things, that it has the capacity to discharge the deb...
Arokya Das Alias Das Chinnasavari and Others Vs. State of Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2794; 2000(5)KarLJ62
ORDER1. The petitioners, in this petition, are the Councillors of the second respondent-Municipal Council.2. In this petition, the petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order dated 11th of January, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E, passed by the first respondent, wherein the first respondent has, in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 316 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dissolved the second respondent-Municipal Council on various charges set out in the said order.3. A few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as under:(a) The election to the second respondent-Municipal Council was held on 7th of January, 1996 and thereafter, Council was constituted by means of notification dated 12th of January, 1996. However, the election to the Offices of the President and Vice-President as required under Section 42 of the Act, was not held. Under those cir...
Kap Steel Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4156; (2000)IIILLJ1079Kant
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner is a company. It has resorted to lay-off its workmen from September 7, 1998. The fourth respondent-union has complained to the first respondent about non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the union, there are more than hundred workers in the petitioner-company whereas the management contended that there are only ninety six workers, and, therefore, permission of the Government was not obtained for laying off the workers. Consequently a showcause notice as per Annexure-C, dated September 24, 1998, was issued to the management as to why action should not be taken against them under Section 25Q of the Act. The management replied as per Annexure-D narrating the reasons for laying off the workers and requesting not to take any penal action. Thereafter, the fourth respondent union has sought for recovery certificate. Accordingly, the impugned recovery certificate atAnnexure-...
M/S. Transport Corporation of India Limited, Bangalore Vs. M/S. New In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ130
1. The defendant in O.S. No. 6762 of 1989, a suit for recovery of money, is the appellant before this Court, questioning the decree passed against them.2. The plaint averments are that the first plaintiff is the New India Assurance Company Limited and the second plaintiff in M/s. N.G.E.F. Limited. The second plaintiff carries on business in manufacture of the transformers, motors etc., having its office at Byappanahalli, Old Madras Road, Bangalore. The defendant is the public carrier. On 31-12-1986 the second plaintiff entrusted a consignment of 15 Nos. KVAtransformer with oil fittings for transportation and safe delivery at Gaya as per the orders of Bihar State Electricity Board. The defendant accepted the same under Lorry Receipt No. J-00420, dated 31-12-1986. The entire consignment was entrusted in good condition. The consignment was insured by the 2nd plaintiff with the first plaintiff under Policy No. 2222101507 covering all the risk such as damages, shortages, non-delivery etc. i...
Kazi Mohd. Muzeebulla Vs. the High Court of Karnataka Ad Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2413; 1999(3)KarLJ550
ORDER1. When robed culprits violate moral-legal norms, the appointed agency steps in to see that the judiciary is functionally kept on course and any deviance or misconduct, abuse or aberration, corruption or delinquency is duly monitored and disciplinary measures are taken promptly to make it unprofitable for the delinquents to depart from the Code of Conduct. This is one such case. The High Court on the administrativeside, had initiated domestic enquiry proceedings against one of its subordinate Judicial Officer by issuing a charge-memo dated 18-3-1992, to enforce punitive therapeutics. The memo contained charges of misconduct as Civil Judge, Gadag, during the year 1991. Among other things, it specified that as a Civil Judge, Gadag, with ulterior motive of conferring undue benefit on the claimants in LAC No. 13 of 1989 and in LAC No. 159 of 1990, had passed awards fixing the market-value of agricultural lands at an exorbitant amount and thereby had acted dishonestly, guilty of gross ...
Smt. S. Sunanda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2847; 1999(5)KarLJ57
ORDER1. This matter has been listed for preliminary hearing. By consent of the parties before Court, the matter had been taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, rule is issued.2. The petitioner herein had challenged the show-cause Notice dated 28-10-1998 in No. LRF. CR. 69 issued to the petitioner and one L.K. Sheshappa (the father of the petitioner herein) a non-party to the instant writ petition and also stated to be no more, by the respondent 2-the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division. In issuing the same, the said Revenue Authority while setting aside the order passed in the proceedings in No. A.C. PUC.M.C.R:211 of 1987 initiated under Section 83 of the Land Reforms Act (henceforth referred to as the Act) for violation of Section 79-A of the said Act, passed by respondent 3 - the Assistant Commissioner and prevention of unauthorised construction, called upon the petitioner and the above said L.K Sheshappa to show cause as to why the proceedings be not reopened. The res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »