Karnataka Court February 2000 Judgments
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Regional Transport Auth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC549
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This petition is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No. 1353 of 1999, dated 19.11.1999.2. Facts: The petitioner sought for a permit on the route Sullia Mandikolu before Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore. Regional Transport Authority granted a permit vide Resolution dated 23.8.1999 in Sub. No. 2/99/2000. The second respondent, aggrieved by the said resolution filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 32153 of 1999 which was rejected on the ground of an alternative remedy. Further, second respondent filed a revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) before the third respondent. His main ground of attack was that his application for grant of a permit was still pending and hence, without considering his application, the Regional Transport Authority could not have granted the permit in favour of the Corporation.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore and Another Vs. V. Ethiraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant314; 2000(5)KarLJ23
1. This is defendants' first appeal from the judgment and decree dated 19-11-1996 delivered by Sri K.H. Malleshappa, X Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore City, in a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs date of birth is to be 2-2-1943 and not 31-8-1937 and for further declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to continue in service of the 1st defendant till 2-2-2001.2. The plaintiff has alleged that the plaintiff was employed in the defendants' Company in 1962 as a casual worker and thereafter was confirmed in the defendants' Company on 27-7-1964. According to the plaintiff, the defendant-Company required the plaintiff to report before the Chief Medical Officer of the Company to undergo medical examination for recording his date of birth and it appears after the medical examination vide Ex. D. 1, dated 6-9-1972, the Medical Officer assessed the date of birth of the plaintiff/respondent to be 31-8-1937. The plaintiff alleged that when he came to know abo...
Tag this Judgment!Akkirampura Grama Panchayat, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District Vs. Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant278; ILR2000KAR1594; 2000(4)KarLJ226
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by Akkirampura Grama Panchayat, Tumkur District seeking to declare that the petitioner is entitled to levy and collect fees in market area in Akkirampura Village in Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District and further to quash Annexure-B, dated 28-10-1999 issued by the second respondent.2. The petitioner states in the petition that in terms of the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, the petitioner is entitled to collect fee and to levy fee under the said Act. He also states that the petitioner has the necessary power and jurisdiction to collect or levy market fee in respect of livestock's like sheep, cattle and goats. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 21590 of 1991 on the same cause of action, which came to be withdrawn by the petitioner. The further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has right to collect the market fee and such right is not taken away under the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Market Act.3. On the other hand...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Sachdev Vs. B.V. Chitti Babu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR764
ORDER1. This revision petition discloses the defiant attitude of the landlord with respect to an allotment of a residential building by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore. As per proceedings of the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, the residential premises in question was allotted to the petitioner. This allotment was obviously disliked by the landlord the respondent herein. He challenged the same before the Appellate Authority namely the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Krishi Bhavan, Bangalore unsuccessfully. That appeal was rejected which resulted in his filing W.P. No. 15311 of 1995 before this Court that writ petition was also dismissed on 19-9-1995. A writ appeal was filed by the landlord as W.A. No. 3662 of 1995; the appeal was also dismissed on 16-10-1995. Subsequent thereto, steps were taken by the tenant to secure possession of the premises. The key of the premises was handed over to the tenant on 25-10-1995 but at the time of delivery it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D. Krithiveni Vs. P. Shivaram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ627
ORDER1. The defendant in a suit for recovery of money of Rs. 2,84,110/- has preferred this revision, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Trial Court in LA. under Sections 94 and 151 of the CPC directing the defendants to furnish the security for the suit claim.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had failed to repay the money taken for the construction of the house at Whitefield. She has also borrowed Rs. 50,000/- on 16-9-1991 by executing on demand promissory note. When the cheques given by her were dishonoured on presentation, complaint in CC No. 16023 of 1990 was tiled before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Magistrate in that case ordered to take action against accused under Section 193 of the IPC read with Section 430 of the Cr. P.O. for tampering the Court records believed to have been committed by the accused to suit the defence. The defendant was originally working as a Gazetted Officer in Government of Karn...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Gangadhar Sajekan Vs. the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR29; 2001(3)KarLJ418
ORDER1. These four petitions filed by the same petitioner, involving interlinked and overlapping issues, are heard together by consent and disposed of by this common order.The facts leading to filing of each of these four writ petitions, are briefly as follows:I. In W.P. No. 16487 of 1989:2. Petitioner was appointed as a District Judge on 9-2-1979 by direct recruitment, under the Karnataka District Judges (Recruitment) Rules, 1962.3. By letter dated 11-8-1989, the Registrar of the High Court communicated to the petitioner, the following adverse remarks entered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the Confidential Report for 1987 (1-1-1987 to20-8-1987):'The officer has a tendency to take up light work and bypass old and complicated matters, and there is scope for improvement in his work. On the whole, his work is not upto the standard expected of a Senior District Judge'.The above adverse remark will, for convenience, also be referred to as 'Adverse Remark I (1987)'. The petitioner filed obj...
Tag this Judgment!Nilakantarao Nadig Vs. Canara Bank, Sorab Branch, Shimoga District and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant185; [2001]106CompCas550(Kar); 2000(3)KarLJ318
ORDER1. The second judgment-debtor in Execution Case No. 112 of 1994 on the file of the Munsiff and JMFC at Sorab has preferred the above Civil Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 23-8-1996 under which, the learned Munsiff has directed to issue arrest warrant against the second judgment-debtor/petitioner herein. It appears that the petitioner's arrest application was filed on 29-9-1994 and after issuing the arrest warrant on 23-8-1996, a warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the second judgment-debtor.2. Now the contention raised in grounds of revision is that minimum opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. The mandatory provisions of Section 51 has not been followed. The Court below erred/failed to see that the repayment of the debt is secured by the mortgage of land of the 2nd respondent, who is a principal borrower and execution should issue qua the property of the principal borrower and not against the surety. The order of the Court belo...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore Vs. Anand Joshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ517
ORDER1. This petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed with the prayer to appoint an arbitrator. There is no stipulation for the appointment of the arbitrator in the agreement and it is only by the virtue of provisions of Section 7(4)(c) it is contended that the condition for appointment of arbitrator in the agreement should be construed 'in writing'. A notice dated 21-7-1999 was sent by the petitioner alleging that 'you have also agreed with our client that the issues can be referred to arbitration in Bangalore'. It is also mentioned that if the respondents failed to settle the matter within 21 days from the receipt of notice legal action would be initiated. No reply was sent within the stipulated time. On 12-8-1999, it was replied that the 'averments in the notice are refuted'. Petitioner thereafter sent another letter dated 22-9-1999 that a valid arbitration agreement has come into existence. Reply of this letter was sent on 28-9-1999 ...
Tag this Judgment!Khandappa and Others Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagaman ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ521
1. All these appeals are delayed by 18 days in the matter of refiling. These appeals had been filed against the common judgment and decree dated 9-7-1999 passed by the District Judge, Mandya, whereby he disposed off Land Acquisition Appeal Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of 1999 by one common judgment. All these appeals have been filed on 8-10-1999 and according to office note, they were in time. But, along with them, the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the reference Court had not been filed. So they were returned for being refiled along with the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the reference Court.2. Under the rules, as contained in Chapter XII of the High Court Rules, it has been provided that if there are any defects, the registrymay direct the Advocate concerned to remove the defect and may fix time within which the papers may be represented after rectification of the defects. It further provides that the registry may extend the period from time to time....
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and Another Vs. M.B. Boraiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant222; 2000(3)KarLJ465
ORDER1. The Karnataka Electricity Board, by its Chairman and Executive Engineer, major works, K.E.B., Mysore have preferred the above C.R.P. against the Miscellaneous No. 17 of 1988, under which an order was passed by the District Judge, Mandya under Section 16(3) and Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act granting for award of compensation of Rs. 90,000/- in respect of the claim made by the respondent herein.2. The admitted facts are that the respondent was the owner in possession of the residential house at Shankarnagar, Mandya City measuring 60' x 40' including the vacant site. He purchased the vacant site under registered sale deed dated 10-12-1975. When he purchased the site, there was 66 KVS electric line passing over the property which was otherwise known as Simsha-Mandya line. At the time of construction, he approached the petitioner-authority and represented that the line was passing on the residential area and it was dangerou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »