Karnataka Court March 2000 Judgments

State Through Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga and Others Vs. Prabhakar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ36

1. This is the defendants' appeal from the judgment and decree dated 19th September, 1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Gulbarga in original suit number O.S. No. 47 of 1995. The plaintiff had filed the above mentioned suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,54,692/- against the defendants. 2. Plaintiff claimed himself to be P.W.D. Contractor and he alleged that he had been entrusted with the work of repair and tar work of the Chittapur-Malkhed Road from 10.15 km to 13.20 km, on the total costs of Rs. 4,00,827-11 Ps., accordingly there was an agreement. But he could any out the part of the work amounting to Rs. 91,176/- and stopped further work as per order and the direction of the Chief Engineers. The plaintiff alleged that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 91,176/- was payable on or before February 1993. Under this amount the material worth Rs. 41,000/-, was allotted by defendant 2, at P.W.D. expenses. So after deduction of Rs. 41,000/-, plaintiff claims to be entitled to the sum of Rs. 50,1767-, ...

The Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalor ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2000KAR4987; 2001(1)KarLJ292

ORDER1. The writ petition is taken up with consent of parties. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is the management of the KSRTC challenges the order of grant of interim relief at Annexure-C. Annexure-C is the order granting interim relief to the respondent-workman. 3. In this case, the workman was dismissed from service on alleged misconduct on 16-11-1993. The claim statement was filed by the workman under Section 10(4-A) on 21-3-1994. The application for interim relief was subsequently filed on 6-1-1996. The preliminary issue on domestic enquiry was passed on 4-6-1999. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. In these circumstances, the Labour Court granted interim relief from the date of application, namely, from 6-1-1996. 4. The learned Counsel for the management submitted that it is usual to grant interim relief only after a decision has been rendered on the domestic enquiry and...

Prakash and Others Vs. Superintending Engineer (Electrical), O and M C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2001(89)FLR458]; 2001(1)KarLJ490

ORDER1. The writ petitions are taken up with consent of parties for final disposal. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the order at Annexure-B issued by respondent 4 stating that the reference is not maintainable on the ground that the dispute relates to seniority and absorption. The matter is well-settled that if an individual raise a dispute it can only be for removal, termination or dismissal. If the workmen wants to raise a dispute with regard to absorption and regularisation, that can only be done by Union which can raise the dispute on behalf of the workman. Bombay Union of Journalists and Others v The 'Hindu', Bombay and Another, states that dispute cannot be made by an individual person if it relates to regularisation and absorption unless the dispute is taken up by the Union.3. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition stands dismisse...

K. Chennakeshava Vs. Smt. Lakshmamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ287

ORDER1. Heard.2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order passed under the Guardians and Wards Act, in G and W.C. No. 73 of 1999 onthe file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, under which the grandmother has been appointed as a guardian for the minor child. The mother-in-law approached the Court under Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act for appointing herself as guardian of the minor on the ground that after the marriage on 16-6-1997, the petitioner splinted his wife the daughter of the respondent herein to humiliation and harassment and it is claimed that the petitioner poured kerosene on her and set fire and it was cold blooded murder. The case was registered under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and SC No. 301 of 1999 and the investigation is pending. Consequently, an application was filed by way of interim measure for custody of the minor on the ground that the husband has killed the mother of the child.3. Resista...

Smt. Reddivara Naramma (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. State of Karnataka and O ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2000KAR2303; 2000(4)KarLJ524

ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is the rival tenant's writ petition questioning the order of the Land Tribunal, Bagepalli in Case Nos. LRM. K. 26-10 and LRM.K.26-3, dated 16-9-1980 rejecting Form No. 7 of the petitioner as well as respondent 3. The lands in question bearing Sy. No. 155 measuring 6 acres 26 guntas, Sy. No. 185 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas, Sy. No. 569 measuring 3 acres 38 guntas and Sy. No. 568 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas are Shanbogue Inam Lands. In respect of the said lands, the petitioner-Smt. Reddivara Naramma, filed an application under Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy in respect of Sy. No. 155 measuring 6 acres 26 guntas, Sy. No. 185 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas and Sy. No. 569 measuring 3 acres 38 guntas claiming to be the tenant under the Shanbogue Adi Subbaiah. So also, the respondent 3-Sadashiva Reddy filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy in respect of Sy. No. 568/1 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas and Sy. No. 569 measuring 3 acres 10 g...

Dr. Kanthi Rajashekher Kidiyappa Vs. P.H. Poojar and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ308

ORDER1. The 1st respondent, who is a returned candidate, has filed I.A. No. 4 for rejecting the election petition on the ground that the facts disclosed therein does not contain material facts as required to be stated under Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short the 'Act').2. The petitioner and the three respondents had contested the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Election from the 213 Bagalkot Assembly Constituency which was held on 5-9-1999 and the counting whereof took place on 6th and 7th of October, 1999. On 7-10-1999, the 1st respondent herein was declared as duly elected having secured 138 votes more than the petitioner.3. The present election petition has been filed inter alia with the prayer that the election of the 1st respondent as declared in Form No. 21-C, dated 7-10-1999 (Annexure-A) be declared as void and after recounting the petitioner be declared as duly elected.4. In the election petition, which has been duly verified by the petition...

B.N. Vijay and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR213; 2001(1)KarLJ269

ORDER1. These writ petitions are filed by the students of medical and dental courses of various colleges in the State of Karnataka and also the Karnataka Private Medical Colleges Association, for a declaration that the communication bearing No. 18018/35/97-ME (P), dated 26-3-1999 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, is illegal and unenforceable and for a further direction to the Government of India to reconsider the fixation of fee in place of the impugned Government of India order dated 26-3-1999. In addition to quashing the Government of India order dated 26-3-1999, in all these writ petitions, some of the writ petitions filed on behalf of payment category students also pray for a declaration that the definition of 'free seat' as given in Regulation 3(f) of the Medical Council of India Regulations, notified on 21-12-1994, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Though, in these writ petitions, the main prayer ...

A.R. Subarao and Others Vs. the Bangalore Development Authority, Banga ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ302

Ashok Bhan, J.1.Appellant filed the writ petition challenging the legality of the order Annexure-A, dated 27-3-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Bangalore Development Authority in LAC No. 619/86-87 seeking quashing of the said order and a direction to reconsider the representation of the appellant dated 5-8-1996 in terms of the Government Order dated 7-11-1995 bearing No. HUD 341 MNX 95, and as per order passed in W.P. No. 30490 of 1996, dated 21-11-1996. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge present appeal has been filed challenging the order of the Single Judge and the order passed by the Commissioner, BDA-Annexure-A.2. In the petition it was averred that late Venkatanarayanappa predecessor in interest of the appellants owned land measuring 17 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 15 of Hatralakunte Village, Begur Hobli. He built a tank on the aforesaid survey number and the land was called as 'Bandekere'. By a Gazette notifi...

B. Om Prakash Bajaj Vs. Gp Capt. P.M. Mathai

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2000KAR2022; 2000(4)KarLJ150

ORDER1. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the respondent is the owner of the petition schedule premises which is a residential building more fully described in the schedule. The petitioner is a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 2,200/- which he occupied in the year 1991. The petitioner however, agreed and undertook to vacate the schedule premises on or before April, 1994. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union and at that time he was working at Higher Command Course, College of Combat, MHOW - 543 442 (MP). The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife and two children aged 13 and 11 years. It is also stated that he had no other alternative accommodation other than the petition schedule premises. As he is employed in the Armed Forces, he is constantly on the move. Therefore, he decided to send his family, i.e., wife and children to Bangalore, so that the children's education would not be affected. ...

Shanmukhayya Vs. the Division Controller, Karnataka State Road Transpo ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. Since the petitioner in these petitions is the same person and since the contentions raised in these petitions being similar and identical, though these petitions are posted in orders list, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed of, by this common order.2. In these petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him mainly on the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in conducting disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.3. Sri S.A. Kalagi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v Chaman Lal Goyal, submitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner requires to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay.4. However, Sri L, Govindaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent tried to support the...