Karnataka Court June 2000 Judgments
B.S. Lakshminarayana Guptha and Others Vs. S. Boraiah and L. Ramaiah a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3148; 2000(6)KarLJ591
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J. 1. These revision petitions are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, both by the tenants and the 'Landlord' aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned District Judge, Mysore in rent revision petitions and that of the learned Munsiff, Mysore in H.R.C. eviction petitions.2. H.R.R.P. Nos. 250 and 931 of 1994 are filed by the tenant Narsoji and Company and the landlords Lakshminarayana Gupta against the orders passed in the Rent Revision Petition No. 145 of 1985 and confirming the order of the learned Munsiff in part passed in H.R.C. No. 543 of 1979.3. H.R.R.P. No. 366 of 1994 is filed by the tenant M/s. Thangam and Company against the order of the learned District Judge in Rent Revision No. 147 of 1985 confirming the orders of eviction passed by the learned Munsiff in H.R.C. No. 548 of 1979.4. H.R.R.P. No. 430 of 1994 is filed by the tenant M/s. Gopalji and Sons against the orders of the learned District Judge in Rent RevisionPetiti...
Tag this Judgment!J. Satyappa Vs. Tungabhadra GramIn Bank, Bellary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ607
ORDER1. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent-Bank which is a Rural Gramin Bank sponsored by the Canara Bank. He is before this Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the respondent dated 5-10-1993 issued by the General Manager of the respondent-Bank stating that his request for payment of subsistence allowance as per the Industrial Bipartite Settlement does not apply for payment of subsistence allowance to him when the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him during the period of his suspension and further stated that the payment of subsistence allowance is governed by the Regulation 30(4) of the Tungabhadra Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter called as the 'Regulations' in short), by urging various facts and legal grounds.2. To consider the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the relevant undisputed facts are stated as hereunder. The petitioner-employee was kept under suspension pending ...
Tag this Judgment!Gunawwa and Others Vs. the Land Tribunal, Belgaum and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2055; 2000(4)KarLJ206
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the District Appellate Authority, Belgaum, dated 5-3-1990 in Appeal No. RALR. 122 of 1988 confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Belgaum, dated 12-5-1988 in Case No. Majagaon. SR. 201.2. One Appayya, father of the present revision petitioners 2 to 4 and husband of first revision petitioner, filed Form No. 7 under Section 48-A, dated 20-12-1974 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') before the Land Tribunal, Belgaum, claiming occupancy rights in respect of Majagaon old Sy. No. 721, new Sy. No. 315 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas and old Sy. No. 722 and new Sy. No. 316 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas. Respondent 3-the owner of the said lands contested the said proceedings denying that the said Appayya was cultivating the above said lands as a tenant. The Land Tribunal, after holding an enquiry came to the conclusion that Appayya was not cultivating the above said lands as a t...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Ramakrishna Vs. the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Trans ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ546
ORDER1. Pursuant to a notification at Annexure-A, dated 19-7-1993 issued by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation inviting applications, the petitioner applied for the post of Account Supervisor. The petitioner was not selected in the selection list published as per Annexure-H, dated 17-11-1994. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking to quash the selection of respondents 3 to 5 and a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him to the post applied for.2. The claim of the petitioner is that since he has studied in rural area, 5% grace marks should be added to the total marks secured by him in the qualifying examination as per the Government Order dated 15-6-1994, copy of which is produced as Annexure-J. According to him, if grace marks are added, his total percentage would be more than the percentage of respondents 3 to 5 and he would be entitled for selection to the post.3. The claim of the petitioner is mis-conceived. Petitioner applied for the post pursuant to th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandramma and Another Vs. Smt. Varamahalakshamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4561; 2001(2)KarLJ215
ORDER1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the Counsel appearing for both the parties and the matter is finally disposed of.2. This revision is directed against the order of the District Judge, Chitradurga in R.R.P. No. 12 of 1999 rejecting the revision as not maintainable by his order dated 6-4-2000.3. The petitioners who are legal representatives of deceased Sid-daramappa, sought to continue the revision in R.R.P. No. 12 of 1999. Though the learned District Judge 'brought them on record as legal representatives of deceased revision petitioner, he held on the basis of the decision in S.V. Venkataramanappa (deceased) by L.Rs v Ravindra K.. Naidu alias R.K. Naidu, that the L.Rs of a tenant in respect of a non-residential premises is not entitled to contest the proceedings and they have to surrender possession of the premises to the landlord. Having said so, the learned District Judge has dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable as the legal representatives have no rig...
Tag this Judgment!Shivanagouda Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Gadag Region, Gadag and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC248; ILR2000KAR2430; 2000(5)KarLJ92
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner who was an existing operator under the permit in question which was dated 25-1-1995 has filed this writ petition praying to quash Annexure-E judgment dated May 3, 2000 of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) made in A. No. 273 of 2000 rejecting his appeal against the resolution dated 16-3-2000of respondent 1-RTA by which his application dated 25-1-2000 made under Sections 81 and 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for renewal of his permit with respect to his stage carriage had been rejected.3. It is not in dispute that petitioner was operating his stage carriage on the route from Gadag to Ranebennur in erstwhile Dharwad District area which presently falls in the new District of Gadag, under a permit which was valid upto 5-4-2000. Therefore, said application was made by him before the competent authority-RTA for renewal of said permit. His application was turned down by R1's resolution at Annexure-D dated 16-3...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. M.D. Gangur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ776Kant
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation against the order dated February 12, 1998, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P, No. 20636 of 1989 affirming the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent conductor with 50 per cent back wages despite the fact that me charge of misconduct was found established against him.2. The respondent, who is employed as conductor in the appellant-Corporation, was found in possession of excess cash of Rs. 23.30, which was unaccounted, while he was conducting the bus on October 9, 1985. This excess cash was found by the checking officials who checked the cash balance of the respondent conductor. Pursuant to the report of the checking squad, the respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and in the said enquiry the respondent himself had admitted of having excess cash at the time of inspection.3. Carrying of excess cash by a conductorof the appellant-Corporat...
Tag this Judgment!The Advocates Association, Bangalore and Another Vs. Registrar (Judici ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR66; 2001(1)KarLJ220
ORDER1.The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the circular dated 29-10-1999 (Annexure-A) issued by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court which had been issued pursuant to the order dated 15-10-1999 passed by one of us in W.P. No. 16776 of 1996, the operative portion of which is to the following effect.--'3. But before parting, I wish to notice the unwarranted practice which seems to have developed in the Registry of this Court. It may be because the persons dealing with applications like thepresent one, are not aware of the rules of procedure and the consequence of treating petitions for restoration as IAs. 4. IA on its very face, means interlocutory application and it can only be filed during the subsistence of a judicial proceeding. But once a judicial proceeding comes to an end, either on withdrawal or dismissal simpliciter for default, or on merits, then and thereafter if the said order is sought to be recalled, reviewed or the proceeding is sought to be restored th...
Tag this Judgment!Guruprasad Vs. Venkata Rao and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4550; 2001(2)KarLJ298
ORDERMohammed Anwar, J.1. This revision by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1099 of 1992 is filed questioning the Trial Court's order dated 24-9-1998 by which his application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected. By that application he sought amendment of plaint to incorporate the additional relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 9-7-1981 executed by R-1 (D-1) in favour of R-4 (D-4) with respect to suit property does not bind plaintiff's share therein.2. The said O.S. No. 1098 of 1992 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in October 1992 for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property which was the subject-matter of the registered sale deed dated 9-7-1981. That sale deed was executed by respondent 1 (defendant 1) in favour of respondent 4 (defendant 4). Respondent 1 is none else than the father of petitioner-plaintiff. The fact of sale of the suit property by him (respondent 1) to respondent 4 was well-within the knowledge of plaintiff even prio...
Tag this Judgment!Assistnat Executive Engineer , No. 20, H.L.B.C. Sub-division, K.R. Pet ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR91]; ILR2000KAR3117; 2001(3)KarLJ39; (2000)IILLJ1559Kant
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 23rd respondent-the Minimum Wages Authority has proceeded to consider the case without condoning the delay. Therefore, he submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed only on that ground.3. Under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act (for short 'the Act'), the application will have to be filed within a period of six months from the date on which the minimum wages became payable. In this case, according to the respondents the amount was due and payable for year 1984-85 to 1989 and that the respondents have not made the application within the stipulated time and further, the respondents ought to have made an application under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act which provides that the application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authori...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »