Karnataka Court June 2000 Judgments
ModIn Kutty (Deceased) by L.Rs and Another Vs. Mrs. Hazel Fernandes an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2819; 2000(6)KarLJ42
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree in Revision (Rent) No. 390 of 1989, dated 23-6-1999 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, in passing whereof, the District Judge while dismissing the said revision petition held that there was no relationship of tenancy between the respondent-landlords and petitioner-tenants and the tenancy right in respect of the non-residential premises is not a heritable right.2. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge hereunder challenged is liable to be set aside on the short point that the same is opposed to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Gantusa H. Baddi (dead) by L.Rs v Meerabai G. Pai and Others, for in the said decision, the Supreme Court held that the tenancy right in respect of non-residential premises is a heritable right.3. In para 8 thereof, the Supreme Court held as hereun...
Tag this Judgment!Noble Plastic Industry, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Cor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ410
ORDER1. Though this petition is listed for orders, with the consent of 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 a proprietary concern and is carrying on business as a Plastic Industry. The petitioner is getting electricity supply from the first respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') for its business concern through installation bearing RR No. E-5/P-2091.3. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 9th of August, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D, insofar as it relates to the disconnection of electricity supply to the installation of the petitioner bearing RR No. E-5/P-2091. Further, he has prayed for a direction to the respondents to give reconnection of electricity supply to the installation bearing RR No.E-5/P-2091 and for a further direction to ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Latief Vs. State by Belthangadi Police, Bantwal Taluk, Mangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ31
ORDER1. On 9-12-1990, one Ibrahim lodged a complaint with the Belthangady Police, alleging in brief thus:After returning from work, at about 7.30 p.m., he was standing by the side of the road in front of his house at Gururapakal. His neighbour Latief also was standing by the side of the road. At that time, Ramesh, Purandara, Kariya, Venugopal along with others came there. Rameshwas holding a stick. With that, he hit him on his left shoulder and on the head. Then, that group went to the place where Latief was standing and hit him with stick and chain and he i.e., Ibrahim and Latief then ran home. Both himself and Latief had sustained injuries on account of that assault.On the said complaint, a case was registered at Crime No. 221 of 1990 of Belthangady Police Station, same was investigated into, and B-report was filed, Then, of the two injured, present petitioner-Abdul Latief filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, B...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Jogi and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR95]; ILR2000KAR3028; 2000(5)KarLJ520
ORDER1. These writ petitions are filed by the management-petitioner. The KSRTC challenges the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference Nos. 34 of 1994, 36 of 1994, 38 of 1994 and 48 of 1994. By the said award respondents 1 to 4 have been reinstated with back wages. Aggrieved by the award the management has preferred these writ petitions.2. The respondents 1 to 4 were working on daily wages and their services were terminated on 15-6-1993 without notice and contrary to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents being aggrieved by their termination raised a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court allowed the reference of the workmen and granted reinstatement with full back wages. The Labour Court gave a finding that the respondents had worked from August 1989 to June 1993. The Labour Court also held that the management did not produce any record to show that the workmen did not work in the Corporation. The Labour Court gave a finding...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Trade Union Centre, Bangalore Vs. Government of Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3737; ILR2000KAR2740; 2001(1)KarLJ1
ORDER1. A registered Trade Union has filed this petition by way of public interest against the State of Karnataka, Lokayukta and three other officials of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited, seeking for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigating the alleged misappropriation, misdeeds, and mismanagement committed by the respondents 4 to 6 (officials of the Company) on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner herein. An additional direction is also sought for a further investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta in addition to other prayers.2. Petitioner states that the petitioner is taking keen interest in the growth of Industries in the State of Karnataka. The Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (KSDL) had entrusted the Security system on the basis of yearly contract to one M/s. Federal Intelligence and Security Bureau on certain mutual agreed terms between the parties. The 4th respondent later called for tenders in September 1998 for security syste...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Anugraha Distilleries Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. State of Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ277
ORDER1. The petitioner have been issued a licence on 7-3-1998 for establishing a distillery with the capacity to manufacture 30,000 litres of rectified spirit per day and 1,50,000 cases of IML per annum. The production is not yet started. The petitioner is now been required to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs as licence for the year 1999-2000 for preliminary distillation and that Rs. 18 lakhs for the secondary distillation. The licence is being composite, it is stated that the order of enhancement of fee is arbitrary and illegal. The action has been challenged on three grounds; firstly that the enhancement of fee from Rs. 7.50 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs and from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 18 lakhs is an arbitrary exercise without any reasons and in view of the judgment of this Court in M/s. Sapthagiri Enterprises, Sameerwadi, Mudhol Taluk, Bijapur District and Others v State of Karnataka and Others, the levy has to be struck down; secondly, it is stated that since the petitioner has not started manufacturing,...
Tag this Judgment!The Mulky Co-operative Service Bank Limited, Mulky Post, Mangalore Tal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR451; 2001(2)KarLJ464
ORDER1. Learned Counsel for respondent not present. Mr. Mahesh for petitioner is heard. 2. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity no material is brought on record by the learned Counsel for respondent showing that the execution of the Consumer Forum's award in question was taken on the file of the Court below pursuant to its transfer by the concerned Consumer Forum. Therefore, as things stand on the material on record, it transpires that the execution of the award of the Mangalore District Consumer Forum was independently initiated by respondent in Execution Case No. 130 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karkala. The validity of the execution proceeding so initiated in the Civil Court by respondent, holder of the said award, is assailed by the petitioner judgment-debtor on the ground that any such award cannot be independently executed before any Civil Court and that it could be done so only on transfer of the award made by the co...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of V.i.S.L., Bhadravathi, Shimoga District Vs. B. Veera ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR617]; ILR2000KAR4399; 2000(5)KarLJ155; (2001)ILLJ394Kant
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This intra-Court appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge who, without disturbing the finding recorded by the Labour Court about the fraud played by the respondent in securing appointment, has directed for his reinstatement with 25% back wages, from the date of his dismissal till the date of the award.2. The respondent had secured appointment as a casual labourer in the appellant's establishment by representing that he had appeared in the S.S.L.C. examination as a regular candidate in a Government school, and that he had also undergone industrial training course as a welder in D.D.R.R. Polytechnic, Davanagere. Subsequently, it had revealed that the respondent had made a false representation and the certificates produced by him were fabricated. Accordingly, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the charges having been found to be proved, was dismissed from service. That lead to raising an industrial dispute through ...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Balavant Chandagadkar Vs. KhutubuddIn Shabhakhan Pathan and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant334; ILR2000KAR2646; 2000(5)KarLJ274
ORDER1. These two writ petitions filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 14(6) and Section 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 thereinafter called the 'Act'), are consolidated for the purpose of disposal by a common order.2. In W.P. No. 9499 of 1988 the constitutional validity of Section 14(6) of the Act is challenged on the ground that the provision is arbitrary, and has, in any event, after a long lapse of time, become unrelated to the realities of life and cannot be sustained. In W.P. No. 22249 of 1990 the validity of Section 14 of the Act is challenged on the same ground that the determination of the fair rent in relation to a situation existing as on 1947, has by lapse of time, become arbitrary and is productive of negative income to the landlord.3. Section 14 of the Act reads as follows:'Section 14. Fixation of fair rent etc.-(1) The landlord or tenant of any building, other than a building in respect of which the fair rent has been fixed either before or ...
Tag this Judgment!Panchayya Vs. Mallayya and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2598; 2000(5)KarLJ215
ORDER1. The petitioner in this petition is the plaintiff before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Jamkhandi. In this petition, he has prayed for quashing the order dated 12th June, 2000 made on I.A. Nos. Ito III in O.S. No. 23 of 2000.2. Sri Kulkarni, while is unable to dispute that the petitioner has a right of miscellaneous first appeal provided against the impugned order under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, submits that since the Advocates at Jamkhandi are on strike and have abstained from attending the Courts, the petitioner is not in a position to avail of the remedy provided to him under the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection, he drew my attention to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder:'5. It is respectfully submitted that though against the order of first respondent, the petitioner has to file Miscellaneous Appeal before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), but on account of ong...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »