Karnataka Court June 2000 Judgments
Ramakrishnaiah Vs. President, Veerashaiva Mutt Education Society and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2275; 2000(4)KarLJ499
ORDER1. Heard.2. This revision by the delinquent teacher is against the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dated 13-11-1988 passed rejecting his application i.e., I.A. No. II under Section 151 of the CPC filed in E.A.T. No. 5 of 1995 praying for adirection to the respondent-Management to pay him the subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the last pay scale drawn by him till 16-5-1996 and at the rate of 90% from 16-5-1996 onwards.3. The material admitted facts are that petitioner had been working as a teacher in certain educational institution of the Management. Certain charges of misconduct were alleged against him. Contemplating disciplinary enquiry of those charges he was placed under suspension by the respondent-Management under its memo dated 15-5-1995 with effect from the said date. That suspension memo was challenged by him before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore ('the Tribunal' for short) ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Kirloskar Mazdoor Sangh, Bangalore Vs. Management of Mysore Kir ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR659]; ILR2000KAR1992; 2000(5)KarLJ35; (2000)IILLJ1050Kant
ORDER1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. Heard Mrs. Mangalamba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Kasturi, learned Counsel for the management, Mr. M.C. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the third respondent.3. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a settlement entered into under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the recognised union and the management is binding on the minority union.4. The matter relates to shifting of the Hubli Unit to Harihar unit subject to certain benefits being given to the workmen by the management.5. This Court more or less by an interim order dated 23-2-2000 settled the matter amicably between the petitioner and the first respondent-management.6. Although that interim order may have brought an end to this litigation it would be appropriate for this Court to deal with the writ petition filed by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Brig. Muthanna Vs. K.M. Appaiah and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant340; ILR2000KAR2246; 2000(5)KarLJ347
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-4-1998 in R.A. No. 11 of 1997 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madikeri, in passing whereof, the learned District Judge while allowing the appeal of the respondent 1 had set aside the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1997 on Issue No. 5 in O.S. No. 58 of 1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Madikeri, directing the respondent 1 to value the suit under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act') and further directed him to pay the deficit Court fee and further answered the Issue No. 5 in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 and also reversed the order dated 22-9-1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 1Kb) of the Civil Procedure Code by remitting the matter to him to dispose of the suit in accordance with law on other issues framed by him.2. The appellant herein is ...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Thimmaraya Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ457
ORDER1. The petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned order at Annexure-H, dated 23-6-1995 passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner granting permission to respondents 3 to 5 for alienating 2 acres, 14 guntas of land in Sy. No. 37 of Thonachanakuppe Village of Nelamangala Hobli on certain grounds. The facts and the grounds raised as also the contentions urged need not be traversed because the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on several grounds.2. In paragraph 2 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of 4th respondent it is stated that after obtaining permission under the impugned order for alienating the land in question, respondents 3 to 5 executed absolute sale deed in favour of the purchaser, K.M. Ranganna on 21-7-1995. It is further stated that the petitioner and his son Nagaraju are consenting witnesses and the relevant portion of the recitals in the sale deed has been extracted. It is further stated that the petitioner was paid major sale consideration ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Muniswamy (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. K. Venkataswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant246; ILR2000KAR3450; 2000(6)KarLJ487
Acts/Rules/Orders:Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 10 to 17;Hindu LawCases Referred:Mudegowdara Bakkappa and Another v. Mallikarjuna and Another, ILR 1980 Kar. 767;K. Venkatarammanna v. K. Brammanna Sastrulu and Another, Madras High Court Reports, Vol. 4 page 345;P.V.S. Venkatachellum v. P.V.S. Kabalamurthy Pillai, AIR 1955 Mad. 350;Vishram v. Gangaram, AIR 1935 Sind 235;Sonatun v. Sm. Juggat Sundari, (1859-61) 8 Moo, Ind. App. 66, 2 Suther 37 (PC);Raja Chandra v. Govind Nath, (1873) 11 Beng. LR 86, 18 WR 221 (PC);Jatindra Mohan Tagore v. Ganendra Mohan Tagore, (1872) 9 Beng. LR 377, IA Sup. Vol. 47 (PC);Pudmanund Singh v. Hayes, (1901) 28 Cal. 720, 28 Ind. App. 152 (PC);Bhairo v. Parmeshwari, (1885) 7 All. 516, 1885 All. WN 136;Maharam v. Ajudha, (1886) 8 All. 452, 1886 All. WN 189;Anantha v. Nagamuthir, (1882) 4 Mad. 200;Amiruddaula v. Nateri Srinivasa Charlu, (1871) 6 Mad. HCR 356;Kuldip v. Khetrani, (1898) 25 Cal. 869, 2 Cal. WN 463;Muthu Kumara Chetty v. Anthony Udayan, A...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Veerabhadrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ84; (2001)ILLJ1532Kant
1. This appeal has been preferred by the E.S.I. Corporation and is directed against an order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondents by the Trial Court. The respondents faced a dual charge of not having filed the requisite returns and not having paid the contribution under the scheme within the prescribed period of time. The respondentscontested the case and the Trial Court acquitted the accused principally relying on the observations of this Court in the Division Bench judgment in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v Subbaraya Adiga. The view taken was basically to the effect that the High Court had laid down certain requirements that the Inspectors must adhere to while making a report in respect of the number of employees in a unit and that in the absence thereof, a conviction was not sustainable. Secondly, the Trial Court upheld the technical plea canvassed on behalf of the accused that the sanction order was bad in law on the ground that it appeared that there were s...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Bharath Gold Mines Limited, Kolar Gold Field Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR465]; 2000(4)KarLJ400; (2000)IILLJ1367Kant
Acts/Rules/Orders:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11-A;Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227Cases Referred:Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary and Another, (1997) 11 SCC 370;Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1938) 2 SCC 442, 1983 SCC (L and S) 342;Gulzar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 738JUDGEMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Intra Court Appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18134 of 1994. The petitioner in the said writ petition has filed the present appeals challenging the order of the learned Single Judge and as well the order of the Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.2. The respondents herein, employed in Bharath Gold Mines Limited, K.G.F., were dismissed from service after conducting a Departmental Inquiry on the charge of theft and fraud. It is alleged that, on 3-2-1985 at about 4-45 p.m. the 7 workmen, who are respondents herein, were found supplying mining sponge g...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jyothi Vs. Smt. N. Mariyamma (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2912; 2000(5)KarLJ603
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 1409 of 1998. The third defendant in the suit is the appellant, the first respondent is the plaintiff in the Trial Court, and the second and third respondents are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.2. The brief facts leading to the appeal are stated thus.-The second respondent had executed a conditional sale in favour of the appellant on 20-6-1984 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in respect of the suit property. Under the said agreement, it was stipulated that within a period of three to five years from the date of the said deed, if the amount received under the deed is repaid to the first respondent, the appellant undertook to reconvey the property. Subsequent to the said agreement, the second respondent executed an agreement of sale in favour of the first respondent on 19-12-1984 wherein the conditional sale deed executed in respect of appellant i...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Ganapati Kyasti and Others Vs. Gurulingappa Bashettappa Kyasti ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ544
ORDER1. Heard Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Rajashekar Seeri holding brief for Sri Mohan Shanthana Goudar, learned Counsel for the respondent 2.2. This revision arises from the judgment and order dated 23-12-1994 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Gokak, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as time barred. The Trial Court decided the issue as to limitation as a preliminary issue and after having found the suit to be time barred, dismissed the suit.3. According to the plaintiffs' case, the plaintiffs who claim to be the sons of one Ganapati Bashetfyappa Kyasti of Waderhatti and plaintiffs 3 and 4 are his brothers and all of them are cultivating land of their respective shares in the suit property. The plaintiffs claim in the suit a declaration of title to the effect that plaintiffs are Kabzedars i.e., holders in actual possession of the suit land bearing 22, Waderhatti, Gokak Taluk. According to the plaintiffs, they were Kabzedars and were paying the la...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›