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.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Staff and Workers' Federati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ370
ORDER1. The KSRTC Staff and Workers' Federation (for short 'the federation') has filed this petition complaining about the violation of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and about the conditions of service/regulations framed in violation of the Trade Unions Act imposed on them by the Corporation on account of the amendment of the KSRTC Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 ('the Regulations' for short).2. The first petitioner is a federation registered under the Trade Unions Act having its office at Malleswaram, Bangalore. Petitioners challenge the validity of sub-regulation (5) to Regulation 9 and sub-regulation (6) to Regulation 9 of the Regulations.3. Petitioner in the lengthy petition states that the first respondent is a Corporation constituted in the year 1961 in terms of Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950. Prior to the setting up of the Corporation, the transport operations were carried on as a departmental undertaking known as MGRTD. The workmen/wo...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Bangalore Engine ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ179
ORDER1. This group of appeals seeks to assail the correctness of a series of more or less identical orders passed by the Trial Courts in prosecutions instituted by the Department under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (as amended up-to-date). Briefly stated, the defence pleaded in these cases was to the effect that the Department had alleged breaches on the part of the employers insofar as they had not paid within the prescribed period the employer's contributions and the employees contributions and had not filed the requisite returns evidencing such payments. The defence that was pleaded was to the effect that it was obligatory on tbe part of the Department to have quantified the exact amount that was the subject-matter of the charge and I may mention here that the line of cross-examination proceeded along the line of questioning the Department's Inspectors and other representatives asking them as to whether they have physically checked certain records and wh...
B.R. Deshpande Vs. Chitradurga Gramina Bank, Chitradurga and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1917; 2001(1)KarLJ82
ORDER1. This petition is filed by one Deshpande, Manager, Chitradurga Grameena Bank, challenging the promotion order dated 4-7-1995 Annexure-M. Petitioner has also challenged Annexure-C insofar as the prescription of marks for leave record, prescription of marks on the basis of fresh self-appraisals and also the negative marking for promotion for reprimand or warrant or caution, in addition to other reliefs.2. Facts.--The petitioner is an officer of the Bank. He has challenged the denial of promotion to him on the following facts. He states that the Government of India implemented the award of the Tribunal from 1-11-1987 in all Regional Rural Banks. The post of Field Supervisors, Officers, Managers, Senior Managers etc., all came to be known as officers in Junior Management Grade Scale-I. The post of Area Managers and Senior Managers came to be known as Officers in Middle Management Grade-II. The posts of Middle Management Grade-II are to be filled up 100% by internal promotion from th...
Majlis-e-millia, Dargah-e-hazrath ShamsuddIn Auliya Trust, Bangarpet V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ126
ORDER1. Petitioners 1 to 4 claiming to be the founder Trustees of a registered Trust known as Majlis-e-Millia have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order at Annexure-F, dated 10-5-1995 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the objections filed by them for registering the institution Masjid-e-Shams, Dargah Hazrath Shamshuddin Auliya, quarters of Imams and Mouzans and Shamshuddin Memorial Hall Shadi Mahal as wakf properties under Sections 25 and 26 of the Wakf Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioners state that the construction of (1) Shadi Mahal known as 'Shams Memorial Hall', (2) Masjid-e-Shams, (3) Residential Quarters for the Masjid and Dargah staff, (4) Office Room, (5) Meeting Hall, (6) Musaffir Khana (Shelter for travellers/visitors/devotees), (7) Watchman's room etc., are the Trust properties and not wakf properties and that they have got right to manage and control the same. It is further stated that the impugned order is not preceded by an en...
H.M. Chandregowda and Another Vs. State by Chikmagalur Rural Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2710; ILR2000KAR2851; 2001(2)KarLJ480
ORDER1. Government Pleader Sri G. Bhavani Singh is directed to take notice.2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader.3. The petitioner is seeking transfer of S.C. No. 37 of 1999 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur to the Principal District Judge, Mandya, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), on the ground that the entire evidence has been recorded by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur and before the 313 statements of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could be recorded, the learned Judge has been transferred to Mandya. In order to enable the Judge to appreciate the evidence recorded by him and as also to observe the demeanour of the witnesses, it is necessary that the case should be transferred from the Sessions Court, Chikmagalur to Sessions Court, Mandya. The petitioners submit that the Judge who is under orders of transfer is not inclined to dispose of the matter. H...
The Karnataka Board of Wakf, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ602
ORDER1. Both the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing S. Nos. 123 and 124 of Honnavalli Village in Tiptur Taluk. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are common and the 3rd respondent is under the control and administration of the petitioner. The lands are claimed to be wakf property attached to a wakf institution called Jamia Masjid of Honnavalli. It is asserted that the lands are under cultivation through its employees and managers. That the 3rd respondent herein filed an application for grant of occupancy rights on behalf of Jamia Masjid as it is an inamdar. The 4th respondent also filed an application claiming that he is a kazi and thelands are endowed to the Jamia Masjid and rendering services to the institution. The Land Tribunal in the first instance rejected the application of the 4th respondent and hence, he filed W.P. No. 3274 of 1982 on the file of this Court. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 11-4-1984 remandin...
Saibanna Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1717; 2000(3)KarLJ643
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in LAC No. 1 of 1989, seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded.2. A total extent of 4 acres 27 guntas of land belonging to the appellant in Sy. Nos. 129/1, 129/3, 129/4 and 129/74 situated in Taj Sulthanpur Taluk, Gulbarga, has been acquired by the respondent-L.A.O.,Gulbarga, under a preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act (for short, the 'Act') which was published inKarnataka Gazette on 13-8-1981 for construction of KSRP Quarters,Gulbarga. The respondent passed the award on 30-6-1986 awardingcompensation at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per acre. Not being satisfied withthe said compensation awarded, the claimant made an application before the respondent-L.A.O. seeking for a reference being made to theTrial Court for determining the market value of the acquired land anddetermining the just compensation payable to him. Accordingl...
A.S. Loni Vs. Town Municipal Council, Jamakhandi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2593; 2000(5)KarLJ46
ORDER1. By a notification published in the Gazette on 4th of February, 1999, objections to the revised rates of licence fee applicable with effect from 1-4-1999 were invited from those interested in opposing the revision. No objections having been received, the Council passed a resolution on 31st of March, 1999 revising the rates of fee for different trade and professional licences, which it is competent to issue. A notification issued on the same date brought into force the revised fee structure, aggrieved whereof the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.2. Mr. Nargund, Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the earlier fee of Rs. 50/- had been suddenly hiked ten times and fixed at Rs. 500/- for all such traders, as are carrying on business in cloth, cotton and art silk etc. This increase was, according to the learned Counsel, neither justified nor otherwise sustainable having regard to the nature of the service rendered by the Council to the licensees....
M/S. Prasanna and Company, Bangalore Vs. Prasanna Kumar and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ166
1. This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant arises from the judgment and decree dated 2nd January, 1997 passed by the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (Mr. A.V. Chandrashekar) in O.S. No. 421 of 1989 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 43,783/-.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are:That the plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants claiming decree for a sum of Rs. 43,783/- with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from 22-2-1988 till the date of payment and for a direction to seize the autorikshaw bearing No. CAM 125 and for its being handed over to the custody of the plaintiff.2-A. As per the plaint allegations, the plaintiff claimed to be a private money-lending firm registered with the Registrar of Money-Lenders, Bangalore and carrying on the business of financing loans on the basis of security and hypothecation of goods and vehicles. The plaintiff alleged that he was a valid money-lende...
United Breweries Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas230(Kar)
1. The appeal is filed against the order passed in exhibit No. 631 of 1991 on the file of the 19th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellant is the garnishee. The first respondent, Karnataka Bank, is the decree holder and the other respondents in the appeal are the judgment debtors.2. The material facts relating to the case are stated thus: The first respondent decree holder obtained a decree against the judgment debtors in O. S. No. 1759 of 1988 by virtue of the compromise entered into between the parties. An application came to be made under Order 21, Rule 46 for issuance of prohibitory order against the garnishee, the revision petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 5,66,365.66, pursuant to which the garnishee deposited theamount in the court after contest. Subsequently, the decree holder made an application for directing the garnishee to deposit the accrued interest liability payable under decree in a sum of Rs. 13,70,555.70. The trial court after hearing the objections, directed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »