Karnataka Court March 2000 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.
Ramakrishna Gowda Vs. Chairman, Zee Television, New Delhi/Bombay and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant276; ILR2000KAR2337; 2001(1)KarLJ265
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. This petition has been filed as a public interest litigation alleging therein that on 4th of December, 1999 at 12 noon in Court hall No. 4 of the High Court, a dummy Court proceedings engaging the Court staff came to be held and the same was video recorded by the Zee Telefilms Limited, respondents 1 and 2 for telecasting the same on its channels. It is also stated that the Court halls of the High Court cannot be used for any purpose other than conducting the Court proceedings during the Court hours for the dispensation of justice. There is no provision for telecasting dummy proceedings or holding such proceedings. It is further alleged that on 4th of December, 1999 being a Saturday and non-sitting day for High Court no case had been listed for hearing and no cause list had been issued notifying sitting on that day, Holding of dummy proceedings or videotaping of the proceedings in the Court halls is illegal and an act of impropriety. A declaration has been sought t...
Devendra Kumar Vs. Ngef Limited, Bangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1514; 2001(1)KarLJ521
ORDER1. Petitioner-Sri Devendra Kumar, who was working as Manager in Motor Marketing Division of NGEF Limited, Bangalore, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution calls in question, the correctness or otherwise of the orders made by the Appellate Authority dated 3-4-1995 in confirming the orders made by the Disciplinary Authority dated 1-2-1995. By the impugned order, the Disciplinary Authority has dismissed the petitioner from services of the respondent-company.2. Facts in brief are as under:Petitioner was working as a Manager in Motor Marketing Division of the respondent-company. He has worked in the company for more than two decades. The respondent is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. It is fully owned by Government of Karnataka. The company falls within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.3. Petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 12/17-1-1994 inter alia alleging that he was running a partnership firm in the na...
M. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Canara Bank, Head Office, J.C. Road, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1359; 2001(2)KarLJ236
ORDER1. Some people pay a heavy price for their honesty, integrity and devotion to duty. This case is one such example. After receiving appreciation letters from all quarters throughout his service, petitioner is now made to go out of service with a black mark attached to his honesty and integrity. This is unfortunate, but this seems to be the order of the day. 2. Facts in extenso requires to be noticed to appreciate the contentions canvassed by learned Counsel for petitioner. Therefore, they are elaborately stated. Petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Canara Bank ('the Bank' for short) as a peon on daily wages in the year 1959 and his services came to be regularised with effect from 30-4-1960. While working as a sub-staff, he passed Matriculation and thereafter on the basis of the departmental test and interview he was promoted as a clerk in the year 1964. After successive promotions, he was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale III with effect from 17-3-1989. During h...
Mysore Construction Company Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4953; 2001(2)KarLJ411
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Petitioner entered into an agreement dated 21-11-1988 with the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (first respondent, 'KPC' for short) under which the work of 'construction of Kadra Power House and appurtenant works' was entrusted by KPC to the petitioner. 2. Clause 67 of the Conditions of Contract forming part of the said agreement related to 'settlement of disputes'. The said clause is extracted below: 'SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES67. If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise between the Engineer and the Contractor in connection with, or arising out of the contract, or the execution of works, whether during the progress of the works or after their completion andwhether before or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the Contract, it shall, in the first place, be referred to and settled by the Engineer who shall, within a period of ninety days from the date of being requested by the Contractor to do so, give written notice of his d...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Rachalah Basaiah Ganachari and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ2113; [2001(88)FLR488]; ILR2000KAR4743; 2001(3)KarLJ135
B.K. Sangalad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28-3-1994 passed in WCA.SR No. 182 of 1992 on the file of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bijapur.2. On behalf of his minor son Basaiah, the respondent 1-Rachiah Basaiah Ganachari filed the application for the compensation on 11-1-1991 stating that his son Basaiah was working in the harvesting machine under respondent 2. On 24-9-1988, while his son was working in the machine his right hand was stuck in the machine. As such, he was treated and ultimately it had to be amputated at shoulder joint. It is also stated that the injured boy was earning Rs. 900/- per month.3. For the claimants boy, himself is examined and Exs. A. 1 to A. 4 are marked. Dr. S.V. Shirol, Orthopedic Surgeon, Government Hospital, Bijapur is also examined. Ex. A. 5 is the case paper produced by the doctor, After hearing the arguments, the compensation of Rs. 81,496/- is awarded.4. The appellant herein being aggrieved by this award has prefer...
Mohan Pavate and Others Vs. Management of Malaprabha Grameena Bank, Dh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1841; 2001(3)KarLJ321; (2001)IILLJ759Kant
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order. 2. Malaprabha Grameena Bank is a Regional Rural Bank established under the provisions of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The Bank is sponsored by Syndicate Bank, which is a nationalised Bank. 3. Petitioners 1 to 3 in W.P. Nos. 23867 to 23870 of 1995 had joined the services of the Rural Bank some time in the year 1977 as Branch Managers. Petitioner 4 had joined the services of the Bank as Officer Grade I. Petitioner in W.P. No. 43467 of 1995 had joined the services of the respondent-Bank as Manager and at the time of filing of this petition, was working at Hirehonnahalli Branch of the respondent-Bank, Petitioners 1 and 3 in W.P. Nos. 11979 to 11981 of 1995 had joined the services of the respondent-Bank as Branch Managers and petitioner 2 therein had joined the services of the Bank as Probationary Officer. 4. In th...
P. Hanumanthaiah Vs. the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1663; 2000(4)KarLJ301
ORDER1. A retired Senior Laboratory Assistant, retired from the services of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, is before this Court inter alia seeking the following reliefs. They are:A. For a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to pay to the petitioner DCRG amounts, which is withheld by the Accountant General in Karnataka, Bangalore. B. For a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to settle his pensionary claims taking into account that the petitioner's age ofretirement is at 60 years. C. For a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the amounts due to the petitioner towards terminal benefits from 1-7-1993 till the date of actual payment. 2. Facts in extenso requires to be noticed. They are as under:Petitioner was working as a Senior Laboratory Assistant in B.S. and H. College, which is affiliated to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore first respondent herein. His date of birth is entered as 16-6-1933 in the service registe...
State by Rural Police, Chamarajanagar, Mysore District Vs. Siddaraju a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4220; ILR2000KAR2778; 2000(5)KarLJ494
1. This appeal concerns, predominently the important aspect of law as to whether the contracting of a second marriage by a husband during the subsistence of the first one and at a time when the first wife was living with the husband in the same house would constitute cruelty within the definition as encompassed in Section 498A of the IPC and secondly as to whether in a case where the wife commits suicide shortly thereafter and the facts establish that the wife was driven to this act due to the cruelty of the accused, a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC i.e., abetment of suicide is tenable. The distressing facts that are relevant are that the accused Siddaraju was married to Ningammanni at Kallamballi on 18-6-1992. Some time thereafter the accused developed intimacy with one Gowramma and married her on 9-11-1993 at a temple at Kallamballi. It is alleged that Ningammanni was severely ill-treated by the accused-husband and his parents and that inter alia, she was not even given prop...
The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore Vs. State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ204
Acts/Rules/Orders:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 9;Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 36 and 64;Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 11-A, 12, 17(4) and 19;Constitution of India - Articles 136 and 226Cases Referred:State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1995, (1995)4 SCC 229;Laxmi Chand and Others v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and Others, AIR 1996 SC 523, 1995 AIR SCW 4423JUDGEMENT1. This appeal is filed by the 2nd defendant. Heard Sri R.A. Kulkarni, holding brief for Sri R.S. Hegde, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Chandrashekar, holding brief for Sri P. Krishnappa, learned Counsel for second respondent and Sri M. Ramaiah, learned Government Advocate for first respondent.2. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 12-2-1997 delivered in O.S. No. 4477 of 1989 by II Additional City Civil Judge, wherein the Trial Court has decreed the plaintiffs suit declaring the plaintiff-respondent to be the owner of the land in...
The Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore Vs. Akkallappa (Dead) b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ374
1. I have heard Sri R.A. Kulkarni holding brief for Sri R.S. Hegde, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Smt. Hymavathi holding brief for Sri H.R. Ananthakrishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This is defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree dated 18-2-1997 passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 10686 of 1987. The plaintiff filed the above suit for the decree directing the defendant to reconvey the suit schedule property namely portions of land bearing Sy. No. 50 of Doopanahalli Village, HAL II Stage, HAL, Bangalore, measuring(i) 48'+72' x 90'+90'2 2(ii) 80'+83' x 3'+30' The plaintiff also sought decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant, its agents and officers, contractors and servants or anyone from selling or allotting the site in the schedule property in favour of any person.3. According to the plaintiffs case, plaintiff has been the original owner of the suit schedule property which admittedly had ev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »