Karnataka Court October 2001 Judgments

Bharathamma Vs. the Deputy Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies, M ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR5532; 2002(1)KarLJ487

ORDERThe Court 1. Heard the Advocates for both the parties so also the Government Pleader.2. An authorisation to run a fair price depot was granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya on 27-7-1995 in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 12408 of 2001. Authorisation granted in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 12408 of 2001 Smt. Bharathamma, was withdrawn by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya on 23-11-1995 as per Annexure-G on the ground that petitioner was an employee of BPL and that she obtained authorisation without disclosing the same to the authorities. On 5-12-1995 as per Annexure-H Deputy Commissioner, Mandya granted authorisation to run the fair price depot in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 3932 of 2001 Smt. K. Manjula. Cancellation of the order of authorisation was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 12408 of 2001 before the Commissioner of Director of Food and Civil Supplies who rejected the appeal on 7-2-1997 as per Annexure-J. Thereafter, a revision petition was fi...

Ganesh Mal Vs. Zeenathunnisa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. Revision filed against the order of the Principal Munsiff, Mysore in HRC No. 375 of 1986 and the order of the I Additional District Judge, Mysore in RR No. 1611 of 1995. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent-landlord made an application for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 21(1)(h), (j) and (f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The Trial Court, on the consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, rejected the claim for eviction under Section 21(1)(h) and (f) and allowed the eviction under Section 21(1)(j) of the Act, however giv-ing a right of re-entry to the petitioner-tenant under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the landlord preferred the revision before the District Judge, Mysore who set aside the order of the Trial Court and allowed the petition under Section 21(1)(h) and (j) of the Act without any right of reentry for the tenant after reconstruction. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revisi...

North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Vs. Abdul Salam

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ482

R. Gururajan, J.1. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is before us challenging the order dated 19-3-1999 passed in W.P. No. 8802 of 1999.2. The facts in brief are as under.3. The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation') issued Articles of Charges on 19-6-1982 alleging short remittance by the respondent-Conductor (for short 'workman'). A detailed departmental proceedings were conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding the workman guilty of the charges. The Corporation accepting the said findings and issued an order of dismissal of the workman from service on 11-3-1985. The workman filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on 12-1-1986. Thereafter the workman raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court after a lapse of nine years. Claim petition was filed by the workman and the same was contested by the Corporation. Evidence was recorded before the Labour Court. The Labour Court set aside the enquiry ...

The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Vs. S.L. Ho ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR714]; ILR2001KAR5539; 2002(1)KarLJ327

R. Gururajan, J. 1. The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (the appellant) is before us, aggrieved by the order dated 15-10-1999 passed in W.P. No. 16835 of 1999.2. The facts in brief are as under:The appellant (for short 'the Corporation') issued articles of charges to the respondent (for short 'the workman') for an act of misconduct. According to the Corporation, on 9-4-1983, the workman, while on Gadag-Bombay route, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner in a state of intoxication, resulting in an accident. Just a little after at Kolhapur Junction, the passengers, frightened of danger to their lives, prevailed upon the driver to stop the bus, which was subsequently driven by another driver. The workman was subjected to medical examination and the medical examination revealed the consumption of alcohol by the workman. The articles of charges was subsequently followed by disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority found the workman guilty. The Corporation a...

Giriyappa Siddappa Beerannavar Vs. Balagappa Ramappa Bhavani

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR5156; 2001(6)KarLJ483

The Court1. Heard.These applications are filed by the appellant to bring the L.Rs of the deceased respondent on record. It is stated that the said respondent died in February 1998 when the appeal before the lower Court was pending consideration. Admittedly, the appellant who is the appellant before the lower Appellate Court did not bring the L.Rs of the deceased respondent on record when the death of the said respondent occurred during the pendency of the first appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The appeal therefore abated before the lower Appellate Court because of the failure of the appellant to bring the L.Rs of the deceased respondent on record. The said appeal before the lower Appellate Court therefore automatically gets abated and when once the appeal gets abated by virtue of the death of the party, the lower Appellate Court could hot have passed any order on the said appeal and any order passed in the said appeal will be a nullity.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amba Bai a...

G.S. Shivakumar Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR4992; 2002(4)KarLJ24

1. Both these appeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned Single Judge on the two writ petitions disposing them off on 9-4-2001. Though we have heard the appellants' learned Counsel and the learned Government Advocate very briefly with regard to the merits, we have taken cognisance of the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the correct forum to decide the disputed issues would be the one set up under the Co-operative Societies Act to decide an election dispute. Mr. Rajagopal submitted that the interim orders specify that everything that took place was subject to final orders which this Court would pass and that consequently, that it was within the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to have decided the disputed issues which he ought to have done. We have taken note of the fact that in so doing it would have been necessary to go into the disputed questions of fact which the learned Single Judge could not have done in exercise of the writ jurisdic...

B. Halappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ198

M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the appellant's learned Advocate as also the learned Advocate for the contesting respondents and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 on merits. The appellant has seriously assailed the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has not only confirmed the order of the Tribunal rejecting the appellant's claim in respect of an area of 3 acres but the learned Single Judge has also interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal which had granted occupancy rights in respect of 20 guntas. In effect, the learned Single Judge has totally rejected the claim of the appellant.2. Various submissions were canvassed before us, the principal one being that the learned Single Judge has effectively reappraised the record or reappreciated the material on record in the same manner in which an appeal Court would do. The position is that it is well-settled law that the power of judicial review which is...

Narayana Devadiga by L.Rs Vs. Sharada and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ581

ORDERThe Court 1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 21-3-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mangalore, in Appeal No. LRA.T. 152/88 Man, allowing the said appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, dated 26-4-1988 in L.R.T. No. 3071/78-79 and rejecting the claim of 1st respondent for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land measuring 23 cents in Sy. No. 117/1A of Jeppinamogaru Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District.2. Respondent 1 filed Form 7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 23 cents in Sy. No. 117/1A of Jeppinamogaru Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. It is the case of the original petitioner-K. Narayana Devadiga that the said land has been mortgaged in his favour on 28-12-1945 under a registered mortgage deed by the then mulagenidar...

Laxman Omanna Bhamane Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1031]; ILR2002KAR443; 2002(2)KarLJ208

ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has sought for a declaration that the provisions of Section 23, read with Rule 24-A of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1963 is ultra vires of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and also for a declaration that the pamphlets issued by the Deputy Commissioner and the Kannada Development Authority are illegal and void being contrary to Article 30 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner is a commission agent and engaged in the business at Belgaum. The case of the petitioner is that most of his customers are marathi speaking people and if he is asked to display his name board on the shop in Kannada as required under Rule 24-A of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), his customers will not be in a position to identify his shop and consequently he would suffer loss in his business. The further case of the petitioner is that since the Marathi sp...

K.N. Manjunath Vs. R.P. Laxman and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR5587; 2002(1)KarLJ275

K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. Two acres of land in Sy. Nos. 7/3 and 10/2 of Beekanahalli Village of Somwarpet Taluk was granted by the Tahsildar in favour of the appellant herein on 29-4-1977 and saguvali chit was also issued on 10-12-1980. When the appellant went near the land granted in his favour, respondent 1 objected on the ground that the same land was also granted in his favour on 13-9-1968. Since the appellant entertained a doubt in regard to the grant of very same land in favour of two parties, appellant approached the Tahsildar, Tahsildar conducted a detailed enquiry and held that no land was granted in favour of respondent 1 in 1968. It was also held by him that the document produced by respondent 1 has got up and fabricated document. Ultimately he also requested Lokayukta to hold an enquiry against the persons who are involved in issuance of a false and fabricated saguvali chit in favour of respondent 1 and to initiate action against all the Government officials or any other person...