Karnataka Court June 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.
Narayan Parameshwar Naik and Others Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, U ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2259; 1999(6)KarLJ244
ORDER1. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought quashing of the orders as mentioned in relief clause (1) by issue of writ of certiorari in proceedings mentioned in detail in the relief clause. Orders are dated 31-5-1999 and 27-3-1999 with reference to each of the petitions and it may also be mentioned here that these writ petitions, as mentioned in the petitions, raises common question of fact and law. The petitions have been filed jointly after paying separate Court fee. That the petitioners, as per allegations of paragraphs 1 to 6, purchased the respective land as mentioned in respective paragraphs from the grantees of the land who were conferred, according to the petitioners, occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights on different dates namely 6-11-1978 and 11-12-1987. In case of 3rd petitioner the occupancy rights was given on 30-11-1981 and the like.2. According to the petitioners' case, the petitioners purchased the ...
K. Maruthi and Another Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3216; 1999(6)KarLJ304; (2000)ILLJ429Kant
ORDER1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions have been working as operator and helper respectively in the first respondent-Corporation. On the allegation of theft of a starter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Corporation against the petitioners. In the said proceedings charges framed against the petitioners were held to be proved. On the basis of this finding the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of fine of Rs. 100/- each on the petitioners. This fine appears to have been paid by the petitioners.2. Thereafter, the Managing Director enhanced the punishment by reducing the pay scales of the petitioners to the minimum in exercise ofpower of review as per the circular and Annexure-1 attached to the standing orders. These orders have been questioned by the petitioners in these writ petitions.3. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the standing orders which are framed pursuant to the Industrial Employment...
Jose and Mani Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. Wheel and A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ435
ORDER1. Petitioner entered into a contract with the Wheel and Axel Plant, Railway Administration, Bangalore. No claim certificate was given by the petitioner stating 'we do hereby declare that no other claim is outstanding against the Wheel and Axel plant, Railway Administration, Bangalore, for the work done or for labour or for material supplied or any other account and the payment of this bill shall be in final settlement in respect of the work'. This certificate appears to have been issued on 13-12-1997. Thereafter bill was prepared and it was mentioned that the bill was accepted under protest for claim. In the letter dated 26-11-1997, request was made to make the payment immediately. It is also stated that on completion of casting and curing of the tank 25% and on completion of other finishing works at 10% payment based on the schedule have not been made as per the agreement. Petitioner has written a letter on 15-12-1997 pointing out that a penalty of Rs. 4,14,950/- being 20% of th...
State by Aldur Police Vs. B.C. Parameshwarappa Alias B.C. Paramesha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)410; ILR1999KAR4052; 1999(4)KarLJ618
ORDER1. We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor at considerable length and we have examined the case virtually threadbare on merits. The principal reason for this is because even though the charge is one under Section 307 of the IPC coupled with allied offences under the Arms Act, the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident was one of extreme seriousness where a fire-arm was used and where the learned Trial Judge concedes the position that the injured has sustained gun-shot wounds in the incident, that in these circumstances, the acquittal was unjustified. The learned Trial Judge has examined the various facets of the case in detail. He has discussed the merits of each of the points and has systematically concluded that the charges levelled against the accused are not established beyond reasonable doubt and in this background, it was necessary for us to embark upon a very careful examination as to whether the Trial Court has overlooked anything material or...
Vinoda Talkies, Tiptur Vs. the District Magistrate, Tumkur District, T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant25; 1999(5)KarLJ30
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The appellant is a partnership firm running cinema exhibition business under the name Vinod Talkies at Tiptur, Tumkur District. It has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28-5-1999 in substance directing the appellant to produce a valid lease agreement in respect of the site over which it is carrying on business, by 7-6-1999 for the purpose of renewal and/or grant of cinema licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (the Act' for short) and the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 ('the rules' for short).2. It is not disputed that the premises over which the cinema business is being carried on belongs to Kalleswaraswamy Temple which is a Muzrai institution governed by the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927. The said premises was given on lease to the appellants under Government Order No. RD 44 MLI 70, dated 27-1-1971 for a period upto 16-1-1996. Based on the said lea...
B.T. Rajashekara Vs. Vysya Bank Limited, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ121
ORDER1. The learned Counsel for the parties desired that the case may be heard and disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 2. I have heard Sri R. Gunashekar, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri B.R. Aswath Ram, learned Counsel for the respondent 1-Bank as well as Sri N.B. Nijalingappa, learned Counsel for the respondent 2. 3. This revision arises from the judgment and decree dated 17-2-1997 passed by the Judge of Small Causes Court decreeing the plaintiff's suitfor a sum of Rs. 8,561.10 with costs and with pendente lite interest at 18% p.a. and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on Rs. 8,000/-. 4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the petitioner was not a guarantor and the plaintiff has failed to prove it that the revision petitioner was a surety or guarantor. He submitted that the Court below erred in taking the view that as defendant 2 has not produced any expert evidence to show that the document does not contain his signatur...
B.V. Munegowda and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3956; 2000(2)KarLJ135
ORDER1. The above two writ petitions are interconnected. The first writ petition was filed by the former Board of Directors to challenge the order dated 27-3-1999 passed by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (C and M) superseding their society known as Horticultural Producers Co-operative Marketing and Processing Society Limited, popularly known as 'HOPCOMS'. Whereas the second writ petition was filed by some of the shareholders of the said society for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents in that writ petition to conduct the election on 23-5-1999.2. For the purpose of convenience the petitioners in the first petition are referred to as the petitioners-Former Board of Directors (in briefreferred to as 'petitioners-Directors') whereas the petitioners in the second writ petition are referred to as the petitioners-shareholders.3. The respondents in both the writ petitions are not common, besides they are differentially placed in the order in t...
Canara Bank, Head Office, J.C. Road, Bangalore and Another Vs. M. Rama ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3112; 1999(4)KarLJ566; (1999)IILLJ994Kant
Y. Bhaskar Rao, C.J. 1. The respondents in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal assailing the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition.The brief facts of the case are that:The contesting respondent herein was working as a clerk in the appellant-Bank. He was kept under suspension pending enquiry for misconduct by an order dated 12-1-1977. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 16-9-1981 dismissing the respondent from service of the Bank. Against that order, the respondent filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by modifying the order of suspension imposed by the original authority and directed him to be reinstated in thebank service and imposed a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect under Chapter XI, Regulation 4(d) of the Canara Bank Service Code. It is submitted that the appellant-Bank has treated the period from the date of dismissa...
M. Krishnappa Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electric ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ558
ORDER1. This revision arises from the judgment and order dated 7-9-1996 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Bantwal, D.K. (Mr. B.M. Baju), whereby the Trial Court rejected the plaintiff-revision petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint by addition of the relief for declaration that the bill sent by the defendant is illegal and unjust.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are:That the plaintiff-revision petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Karnataka Electricity Board from disconnecting the electricity supply to the house of the petitioner through its Meter No. T. 257 of Thumbe Village in Bantwal Taluk. According to the plaintiff the defendant demanded and served a bill on 8-11-1989 as per the plaint allegation that it was an audit short claim. The plaintiff's case is that all of a sudden, he has received a bill on 8th November, 1989 calling upon the plaintiff to pay it by 18-11-1989 in a sum of Rs. 3,841-80, out of which a sum of Rs. 3,836-4...
Chickkathimmaiah Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3154; 1999(6)KarLJ615
ORDER1. Heard Sri K. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Jayarani, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Sri B. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel for respondent 3.2. This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 8-5-1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, dismissing the appeal of the transferee i.e., purchaser from the order dated 6-5-1994 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar, in proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The Assistant Commissioner has declared the transfer deed or sale deed executed by the grantee dated 8-9-1976 to be null and void in view of Section 4(1) of the Act. After declaring the deed to be void, the Assistant Commissioner directed possession to be taken and then said land to be vested in the Government. The Appellate Authority affirmed this order. The land in question had been granted in favou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »