Karnataka Court April 2000 Judgments
Bharat B. Kurbetti and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4216; 2000(5)KarLJ125
ORDER1. The petitioners against whom order of process has been issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nippani, by the order dated 2-7-1998 in C.C. No. 1055 of 1998 have come up in this petition for setting aside the order as well as for quashing the entire proceedings against them.2. The brief facts giving rise to the petition are as follows: The respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 417 and 120(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners herein on the following grounds, viz., (a) that the complainant and the accused who are permanent residents of Nippani and neighbouring villages and accused 1 to 11 are the past and present Directors of a Bank called 'Nippani Urban Co-operative Bank Limited' and accused 12 is the Manager; (b) that the complainant and accused 1 to 11 were the c...
Tag this Judgment!L. Sohanraj and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. (N ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Kar)107; [2003]260ITR147(KAR); [2003]260ITR147(Karn)
H. L. Dattu, J.1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved inall these petitions, they are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this commonorder.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, by its common order dated December 31, 1998, has allowed in part, the Appeals Nos. 63 to 67 of 1997, 68 to 72 of 1997, 73 to 77 of 1997, 78 to 82 of 1987, 180 to 184 of 1997, 185 to 189 of 1997, 190 to 194 of 1997, 195 to 199 of 1997 and 84 to 87 of 1997 for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94, preferred by the assessees and the Income-tax Department, against the orders framed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 27, 1996. The petitioners being of the view that there are certain mistakes, which are apparent on the face of the record/order made by the Tribunal, had filed common petitions under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, inter alia, seeking rectification of the mistake apparent on the face of the record and those miscellaneous petitions are rejected by...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Kamil Sindgikar Vs. Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ540Kant
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Though this petition is posted for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioner, in this petition, is presently working as Junior Assistant in the North-West Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation').3. In this petition, the petitioner has made two prayers-firstly, for a direction to the respondents to keep in abeyance the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in No. VARASA: VIJA: SHISTU: 1392/99 No. 2498-99 till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings registered against him in Crime No. 156/98; and secondly, in the alternative, for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to engage the services of a Legal Practitioner to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.4. However, at the time of the hearing of the petition, Sri Pabhuling Navadgi, learned co...
Tag this Judgment!Kallappa Vs. the Chairman, Jamakhandi Co-operative Bank Limited, Jamak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ49
ORDER1. The revision is directed against the order of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamakhandi passed in S.C. No. 74 of 1994.2. The plaintiff is the revision-petitioner, who had filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant, which is a co-operative bank. The Trial Court, after hearing the plaintiff and the defendants on a preliminary point, dismissed the suit as not maintainable, as the dispute is covered under the Co-operative Societies Act and as per Section 70, arbitration is the only remedy for the plaintiff to recover the amount if it is permissible in law and not by way of civil suit. Being aggrieved by the finding, the revision is filed. 3. The perusal of the order of the Trial Court discloses that, all the relevant facts relating to the case have been copiously set out. The plaintiff, earlier to 1987 has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the bank as a customer and in the year 1987 he enrolled himself as a member and while doing so, he deposited ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kalavathi Rathanakar Sate Vs. Smt. Ambujamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ262
ORDER1. The revision is filed against the order of the I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sagar in I.A. II in O.S. No. 37 of 1999. 2. The plaintiff is the respondent in the revision. The revision petitioner made an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC before the Trial Court to come on record as the second defendant. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-Town Municipality for permanent injunction, alleging interference in possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff/respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner filed an application to come on record in I.A. II claiming that the revision petitioner is in possession of the property and that, she has purchased the property from the respondent. The said fact of transfer of sale of property in favour of the revision petitioner is in controversy. The Trial Court holding that impliedly the petitioner is not necessary party for determining the cruc...
Tag this Judgment!D. Parthasarathy Vs. Smt. Vinayaprabha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC563; ILR2000KAR1755; 2001(1)KarLJ3
1. These two appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arise out of the common judgment passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in M.C. Nos. 318 of 1993 and 586 of 1996, dated 24-7-1999.2. The parties would be referred to with reference to the rank in M.C. No. 318 of 1993 before the Family Court.3. The facts of the case in brief leading up to these appeals are as follows:The petitioner-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage with the respondent performed on 8-3-1992 on the ground of cruelty. It is averred in the petition filed on 23-4-1993 that the petitioner and respondent were married on 8-3-1992 at Bangalore. The petitioner had studied upto SSLC, and respondent has studied upto B.A. It is averred that, after marriage petitioner and respondent went to the house of the respondent. During night, respondent asked the petitioner regarding the educational qualification and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C. Renukaprasad Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2256; 2000(3)KarLJ265
ORDER1. Dr. Renuka Prasad, petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, who is now working as Deputy Director in the Institute of Animal Health and Veterinary biological, Hebbal, has sought for a writ to quash the seniority list of Deputy Directors prepared and published by the Institute in No. IAH/EST/JESTHA/97-98, dated 30-12-1997 as illegal and void. The consequential prayer made is to direct theInstitute to prepare and publish a final seniority list of Deputy Direc-tors/Scicntist-3 by treating respondents 3 to 9 as being juniors to the petitioner and lastly, for a direction to the Institute to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Joint Director/Scientist with effect from 1-3-1993, the date on which his immediate junior Dr. R. Lakshminarayana was promoted with all consequential service and monetary benefits.2. First about the Institute:The Mysore Serum Institute was part of department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences of the State of...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. Viswanath Vs. New Government Electric Factory Limited, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2014; 2000(3)KarLJ424
ORDER1. Parties to the lis in this petition is governed by N.G.E.F. Officers' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. Apart from others, these rules provide a special provision for proceedings against a retired/re-employed persons. The said rule is as under:'36-A: Special provision for proceedings against a retired/re-employed persons:I. A departmental proceedings as per provisions of these rules can be instituted against a retired/re-employed officer/employee of the company in respect of an event which took place during his employment in the company but not more than 4 years before such institution.II. A departmental proceeding, if instituted while the retired officer/employee was in service whether before his retirement or during re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the concerned officer/employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the required officer/emplo...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. H.R. Bhargav and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC645; ILR2000KAR5055; 2001(1)KarLJ358
ORDER1. Heard. 2. There is common judgment and award passed in MVC Nos. 604, 605 and 606 of 1996. The present appeal arises against the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 605 of 1996. 3. The place, date and time of accident are not in dispute. A Maruthi Omni van bearing No. KA-02-M 6996 was involved and hit by a lorry and it was damaged. The van is insured by the New India Assurance Company with a comprehensive policy. The lorry is insured by the appellant for unlimited liability because of the contractual obligation as extra premium has been paid. 4. Mr. A.K. Bhat has fairly admitted that the Insurance Company has made good of Rs. 35,762-00 and further submits that there was surveyor and according to the surveyor, the total damage would be about Rs. 1,35,000/-. These are the admitted facts. Mr. A.K. Bhat, learned Counsel for respondent 1 relied upon the decision in the case of Shankarayya and Another v United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, Although his submission has g...
Tag this Judgment!Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. Presiding ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4356; 2001(3)KarLJ137; (2000)IIILLJ6Kant
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner Reserve Bank of India (in short, 'Bank') has filed this writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the award passed by the first respondent, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (in short, called as the 'Industrial Tribunal') in Central Reference No. 25 of 1991, dated 29-8-1994 urging various facts and legal contentions.2. The learned Single Judge, vide his order dated 11-8-1998 with reference to the legal contentions raised in the writ petition and taking into consideration of the challenge of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was placed by the learned Counsel for the Bank that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeals with regard to regularisation of services of the ticca mazdoors of the Bank with reference to the case arising from the Bank of Ahmedabad branch in the Civil Appeal Nos. 7407 and 7406 of 1994 and 3232 of 1995, 859 employees of the Bank had been absorbed in the services of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »