Karnataka Court July 2000 Judgments
Prakash Vs. Smt. Akkamahadevi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC638; ILR2001KAR448; 2001(4)KarLJ239
B.K. Sangalad, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 3-2-2000 passed on LA. No. I in M.C. No. 58 of 1999.2. The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the wife who has tiled M.C. No. 58 of 1999 for the judicial separation and the custody of the child. Out of the wedlock, there are two children. Of the two, the first one is the daughter and the second one is the son. The respondent is in possession of the daughter. The son is in possession of the petitioner. Now there is a battle for possession of this child. The respondent is bent upon taking the custody of the child from her husband who is opposing tooth and nail. The interim application has been allowed by the lower Court with a direction to the petitioner to hand over the child. Being aggrieved by this, the present revision petition arises.3. Mr. Hebballi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that final prayer sought for in the case is almost equivalent to the interim prayer now grant...
Tag this Judgment!The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli and Another ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR255]; 2000(4)KarLJ538; (2000)IILLJ1581Kant
ORDERG.C. Bharucha, J.1. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation against the order dated 11-10-1999 passed in W.P. No. 37003 of 1999 by the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of the respondent-Conductor but with denial of 75% back wages from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.2. The respondent is employed with the appellant-Corporation as conductor. On 15-7-1993, when the bus bearing No. 3905 plying on the route Talikote-Godakhandi, which he was conducting, was interceptedand inspected by the Checking Squad. It was found that he had failed to issue tickets to 6 passengers out of 33 passengers traveling from Talikote to Fatepur despite collection of fares. On being examined, the passengers stated that though fare was collected from them by the respondent-conductor but he had failed to issue tickets. Accordingly, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In the duly conducted enquiry, t...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Irrigation Department and An ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3520; 2000(6)KarLJ461
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. This appeal arises out of Arbitration Case (AC) No. 6 of 1992 decided by the Civil Judge, Ranebernur, granting a decree in terms of the award in favour of the respondent after rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant to consider their objections. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us.2. The short facts are that the work of Medamaranahalli Tank project in Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, was granted to the respondent-contractor. During the progress of the work, certain disputes and claims arose between the respondent/petitioner and 2nd appellant/2nd respondent and according to Clause 52 of the arbitration agreement, the same were referred to arbitration of the sole arbitrator Sri H.V. Gopalarao. The arbitrator passed the award on 30-11-1992. On an application filed by the respondents, arbitrator filed the award into the Court and the Court below pronounced the judgment in terms of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.K. Shyam Sudhir Vs. Uddapanda Bopaiah Alias Shambu and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3623; 2000(6)KarLJ203
ORDER1. This revision is filed against the rejection of I.A. VI for appointment of Commissioner to examine the witness for the plaintiff on the ground that the witness is the museum of several diseases viz., slip disc, spondylitis, congestion of lungs, hypertension etc.2. Mr. Bhagavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no hardship would be caused to the other side if this witness is examined on commission as he is prepared to pay the Commissioner's fee and any Advocate be appointed by the Court. In view of this submission, the following order is passed:The petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The lower Court is directed to appoint any Advocate as Commissioner to examine this witness on commission. The Commissioner's fee also be fixed as deemed fit by the lower Court. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!H.V. Satyanarayana Rao Vs. State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR5097; 2001(2)KarLJ185; (2000)IIILLJ105Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has sought for the following prayers with the following facts.-- 'Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Order No. CM:OAD: 008981, dated 8-12-1998 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) and Order No. CM:OAD:005253, dated 5-6-1999 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) passed by the respondent-Bank. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to grant the petitioner full salary and allowances for the period of 46 days additional sick leave availed by him, if necessary by debiting 92 days to leave account of the petitioner together with interest thereon at 18 per cent per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner until date of payment'.Facts: Petitioner was an employee of the respondent-Bank. He availed certain leave due to his credit. According to the petition averments he is entitled for the full salary and allowances for 46 days, additional sick leave availed by him. He submitted an application at ...
Tag this Judgment!H.V. Veerabhadraiah Vs. H.S. Kanteeravachar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant171; 2001(4)KarLJ31
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, arises from the order dated 23-6-1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Mr. J.J. Subramanya), Koratagere, in Execution Case No. 30 of 1997, whereby the Trial Court has sustained the objections of the judgment-debtor (petitioner herein) regarding the non-joinder of the legal representatives of the decree-holder and directed the decree-holder to rectify the defect within the time prescribed by the Court itself i.e., one month and the other objection raised by the judgment-debtor to the effect that the execution application is not maintainable because no probate and succession certificate has been attached or produced along with the application for execution, as well as the objection regarding the identity of the property or the signatures of the decree-holder Nos. 2 to 4 alleging to have been forged by the first decree-holder. 2. The facts of the case in brief are: That the decree-holders (respondent...
Tag this Judgment!The Federal Bank Limited, Aluva, Kerala Vs. the Shamrao Vithal Co-oper ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas419(Kar); ILR2000KAR4278; 2000(5)KarLJ242
ORDER1. The Federal Bank Limited through its Chief Manager Sri George John is before this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking a writ to set aside the orders made by this Court in W.P. No. 4965 of 1994. In support of the prayer in the writ petition petitioner states that the 1st respondent herein without impleading the persons interested in the lis, including the petitioner-Bank has obtained an order from this Court on 23-2-1994.2. To appreciate the stand of the petitioner and his learned Counsel before this Court in my opinion, the facts and the reliefs sought in the W.P. No. 4965 of 1994 requires to be elaborately noticed. They are as under:The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Limited is a Bank registered under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. It has its Registered Office at Aluva, Kerala and a Branch Office at Andheri, Bombay. M/s. Vision Technology India Limited is a company incorporated under the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Shambugowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant381; ILR2000KAR3109; 2000(5)KarLJ359
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner, who was Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bagalkot District ('the Committee' for short), has prayed to quash the order in No. E:07:Election:2000, dated 27-4-2000 of R-2, Director of Agriculture Marketing, Bangalore, passed removing him from the post of Chairman of the said Committee with immediate effect pursuant to the 'No-confidence Motion' passed by the Committee in its meeting held on 19-4-2000.Admitted facts:3. As on 19-4-2000 the Committee, consisted of 18 members. The post of one of its member was lying vacant and out of its remaining 17 members one was an official member nominated to the Committee by R-2 under Section 11(1)(viii) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 ('the Act' in short). Petitioner was the Chairman of the Committee prior to 19-4-2000. In response to a valid no-confidence motion notice in Form 27 given against him by the prescribed number of members of the...
Tag this Judgment!C. Andani Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3709; 2000(5)KarLJ413
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner in this petition is an official of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and is working as Revenue Officer in the Corporation. On 25-3-2000 the officials of Lokayukta effected search of the office and the residence of the petitioner and drew a mahajar in the matter. Later he received a notice on 7-4-2000 seeking for particulars regarding the properties vide Annexure-A, issued by the Police Inspector, Lokayukta. Petitioner replied to the said notice as per Annexurc-B, dated 22-4-2000. Lokayukta on the basis of their investigation has written a letter to Mahanagara Palike to suspend the petitioner. Petitioner has now received a suspension order dated 4-7-2000, Annexure-C. Petitioner challenges this order in this petition. 2. Petitioner contends that the impugned order of suspension is a clear case of non-application of mind. There is no satisfaction on the part of the Commissioner with regard to suspension of the petitioner. It is contended that no proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Gayathri Vs. Indira Rajashekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3002; 2000(6)KarLJ80
1. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to refund of 50% of the amount of Court fee paid by her on the memo of appeal in terms of Section 66 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.2. Aggrieved by a decree granted in favour of the respondent by the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the appellant preferred the present appeal, in which by an interim order dated 10th of August, 1998, she was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- within three months to be paid to the decree-holder subject to the condition that in case the appeal succeeded, the amount so received by him shall be repayable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellant, it appears did not deposit the amount in question with the result the execution proceedings instituted before the Court below continued and were concluded in terms of a settlement between the parties upon payment by the appellant of a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- in full and final satisfaction...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »