Karnataka Court October 2001 Judgments
J.C. Tukol Vs. Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ602
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court, aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Hubli, in KID No. 119 of 1993.2. The petitioner-workman joined the respondent in the year 1981. On completion of his probation, he was confirmed in the services. He was illegally dismissed on 26-7-1993. The said dismissal was subsequent to a departmental enquiry on an allegation of the petitioner's failure to issue tickets to 16 passengers, despite collecting the fare. The dismissal was challenged by way of a reference in KID No. 119 of 1993. Matter was contested. After contest, the Labour Court has passed the following award:'Petition is allowed in part. So far the order of dismissal against the claimant is set aside and the same is remanded to the disciplinary authority of respondent, with a direction to make afresh enquiry in accordance with procedure after giving sufficient opportunity to the claimant and then pass a suitable order in accordance with law. Under these circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Executive Engineer O. and M. Rural Sub-division Keb Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant120
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 12th July, 2001 made in M.A. No. 21 /2000 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Belgaum. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 245/89 for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner contending that the demand notice issued by the defendant petitioner for payment of electricity charges is illegal and the threatened disconnection in the notice is also illegal. Inter alia, in the suit. I.A.I. was filed seeking temporary injunction directing the petitioner not to disconnect the power supply during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed I.A.I. filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Miscellaneous Appeal was filed before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Belgaum and in the appeal, the first Appellate Court set aside the order made on I.A.I. by the trial Court and granted interim injunction restraining the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nityanand Vs. Jamuna Prakash
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)381; ILR2001KAR5469; 2002(1)KarLJ448
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner is facing prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act' for short), on the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent-complainant. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, has recorded sworn statement of the complainant, has found sufficient ground to proceed, and has directed issuing of process. The petitioner is aggrieved with the same. 2. The case concerns two cheques allegedly issued by the petitioner-accused in favour of the respondent-complainant, both dated 5-10-1999, one for Rs. 1,00,000/- and another for Rs. 50,000/-, both drawn on Syndicate Bank, Gavipuram Extension Branch, Bangalore. On cheques being dishonoured on presentation for encashment, the respondent-complainant got issued a notice dated 26-10-1999 making a demand in writing as contemplated under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act. No payment of the amounts covered by t...
Tag this Judgment!Neelappa Vs. Banapayya and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ483
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-8-2000 passed in LAC No. 382 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur.2. The LAC had resulted in the award of compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,78,882/- in favour of the landowner. It is in the apportionment of this compensation amount disputes arose as between the petitioner and the first respondent. It appears, this dispute ultimately was resolved in R.F.A. No. 520 of 1994 as per the compromise decree dated 12-8-1998 passed by this Court.3. The salient features of the compromise as recorded under the said compromise decree are as under:'1. The plaintiff to the suit hereby gives up all his claims and contentions raised in the suit and agrees to accept the position as it prevailed on the date of institution of the suit, having regard to the stipulations below. 2. The parties to the suit hereby agree and accept that the defendant 1, namely, Digambar Mat...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkappa and ors. Vs. State by Sub-inspector of Police, Hangal Police ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ518; ILR2001KAR5483; 2002(1)KarLJ61
ORDERThe Court1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. Apprehending arrest in Cr. No. 101 of 2001 (wrongly shown as 360 of 2001 in the petition) of Hangal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 430, 447, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC as well as under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the petitioners have approached this Court in the present petition inter alia contending that the petitioners are innocent and they have been arraigned as accused with vengeance due to previous enmity. It is also contended that, though the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 7-9-2001, filing of the complaint almost after 11 days of the incident especially involving the petitioners with the offence under the Act is to wreck vengeance and isdone with much deliberation and as su...
Tag this Judgment!Moazam Shah Khan and ors. Vs. the Vice-chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi Univer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1146; 2002(1)KarLJ56
ORDERThe Court 1. When answer scripts of any examination are evaluated by a single examiner, the grievance of those who fail to make the grade is that the process of evaluation was subjective or erratic. They argue that revaluation can alone in such cases do complete justice and ensure an objective assessment of the performance of the candidates. Revaluation however is not an inherent right in the students who appear in the examination. Such a right can be claimed or enforced only if the regulations governing the examination provide for the same. Interestingly the grievance in the present batch of cases is not against evaluation by one examiner as is the usual refrain of students who fail in the examination. The challenge is to the regulations framed by the respondent-University providing for double valuation of the scripts. It arises in the following circumstances.-2. The petitioners are M.B.B.S. students who have failed in some of the examinations taken by them. They attribute their ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. Rao Constructions, Bangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ114
ORDERThe Court 1. This civil revision petition had been heard earlier and order had been dictated as on 6-10-2001 indicating as to what could be the outcome of this petition and had been adjourned to 12-10-2001 at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to where exactly the original award was available and to make a submission to this Court as to the further developments that might have taken place before the Madras High Court in the subsequent O.P. No. 365 of 1998 which was a petition filed by the present petitioner seeking permission of that Court to file the original award before the High Court of Judicature at Madras subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier O.P. No. 579 of 1996 which was also for a similar relief and had come to be released as on 15-4-1996.2. The order dictated on 6-10-2001 is as under.-'This revision petition by the Union of India and Chief Engineer, Madras Zone, is directed against the judgment and decree...
Tag this Judgment!Rail India Technical and Economic Services Limited Vs. Ravi Constructi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ419
Raveendran, J. 1. The appellant, respondents 1 and 2 were respectively petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 in Arbitration Case No. 42 of 1998, on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore. For convenience the appellant will also be referred to as the 'employer' or 'RITES'; the first respondent will also be referred to as the Contractor; and the second respondent will also be referred to as the Arbitrator. 2. RITES invited tenders by tender notice dated 1-12-1993 for construction of 'daily market building (civil works)' at Chintamani. The Contractor submitted its tender. The employer (RITES) accepted the said tender and awarded the work to the Contractor, as per letter of acceptance dated 14-2-1994. In that behalf, an agreement dated 18-3-1994 was entered into between RITES and the Contractor for the execution of said work the contract value being Rs. 1,03,18,371.00. The tender notice, letter of acceptance and the agreement made it clear that RITES was acting on behalf of the Town Municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Harsha N.S. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant49; ILR2002KAR397
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions are students pursuing Degree Courses in different disciplines of Engineering in the State of Karnataka. They appear to have applied to their respective College for a change in the discipline/branch of Engineering to which they were admitted. That request has been rejected by the Colleges concerned on the basis of the guidelines issued by the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions challenging the decision as also the guidelines in question. The relevant paragraphs of the guidelines issued by the AICTE may at this stage be extracted:--'1. Branch change at the college level shall be carried out by the Director/Principal of the college. 2. Facility of branch change at the II year (III Semester) level shall be available only to meritorious students and shall not be considered as a matter of right. 3. These guidelines shall be applicable to all in...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Srinivasamurthy Vs. Habib Khathun and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC557; II(2002)ACC510; 2002ACJ557
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. M.F.A. No. 5566 of 1999, M.F.A. No. 690 of 2000 and Cross-objection No. 23 of 2000 arise out of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madhugiri in M.V.C. No. 177 of 1997 dated 23.10.1999.2. M.F.A. No. 3557 of 1998 arises out of and is directed against the judgment and award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, in M.V.C. No. 140 of 1994 dated 29.5.1998. The essential facts of the case necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:Facts Re: M.V.C. No. 177 of 19973. The parties would be referred to with reference to their rank before the Tribunal. M.V.C. No. 177 of 1997 was filed by Suma, the daughter of Mariyappa, aged 4 years, minor represented by her natural guardian father seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 towards the personal injury suffered by her in a motor accident that occurred on 13.1.1997. It is averred in the petition that on 13.1.1997 at about 9 a.m. claimant was standing by the side of K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »