Karnataka Court February 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sgt. Singh S.K. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ253
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J. 1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on both sides. 2. Petitioner was 'enrolled' as an 'Airman' in the Indian Air Force on 11-8-1973 for a period of 15 years. On expiry of this initial period of 15 years of his appointment, he was granted extension of service for 6 years and it was followed by another extension of 5 years. Admittedly, the period of final extension of service so granted to him expired on 1-9-1999. In the meantime, he was served with the memo dated 5-8-1998, vide Annexure-C, from his respondents, superior authority informing him, inter alia, that: '1. Air Force Record Office vide their letter No. RO/2504/2/RW(DIS), dated 22nd July, 1998 has accorded authority for discharge in respect of the above named Airman. He is to be discharged from service with effect from 31-8-1999. He is required to report to AFRO for Final Clearance on 22-2-1999. Hence, he is directed to report this HQ (O/Room SNCO IC P3/NCO i/c Discharge) on 29th December, 1998 ...
Jayachandran Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ389
ORDERThe Court1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C, by the accused in C.C. No. 4129 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, seeking for quashing of the above proceeding against him, registered for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.2. I heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent 2, and the Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent 1.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent, Banashankari Police investigated the case as per the orders passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. and submitted the charge-sheet against the present petitioner. It is pointed out by him that the complaint is filed against the petitioner and one Mr. Anil Kush who is shown as accused 1 in the said complaint and all the allegations made in the complai...
K.V. Ramesh and ors. Vs. H.C. Ramesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3556
ORDERK.R. Prasada Rao, J.1. All these petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing of the proceedings in CC. 17128/96 pending in the Court of VII Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore City, against the petitioners.2. The petitioner in Crl.P. No. 333/97 is the Managing Editor of the Indian Express at Bombay. Petitioners in Crl. P.No. 339/97 are the Resident Editor and Publisher of Indian Express at Bangalore. Petitioner in Crl. P. No. 372/97 is the Chief Editor of Indian Express at New Delhi. The respondent herein filed a private complaint in the Court of VII Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore, against the petitioners and one Dr. K. Venkatagirigowda for the offences punishable under Section 500, 501 r/w Section 120(B) of IPC with the allegation that the petitioners got published in the newspaper Indian Express two news items dated 27-11-1996 and 28-11-1996 making-imputations against him and other family members, which are defamatory in nature. The respondents alleged that the imputations in ...
A.V. Kasargod and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3674; 2002(2)KarLJ270
ORDERK.R. Prasad Rao, J.1. This petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 202 of 1998 on the file of the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore seeking for quashing the above proceedings against them for the offence punishable under Section 629-A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act').2. The respondent filed the above complaint registered as C.C. No. 202 of 1998 against the petitioners before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore alleging that the petitioners have not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 294(2) of the Act while appointing M/s. Medley Marketing Private Limited, Bombay on 28-8-1989 and M/s. P.V. Kuruvilla, Calcutta on 31-8-1989 as their sole selling agents for marketing of the instruments manufactured by their company. Under the agreements entered into with the said sole selling agents, the company had conferred exclusive rights for the sale of their instruments for the territory of Northern India consisting the States of Ut...
C. Veerabhadraiah Vs. C. Channigappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4317; 2002(1)KarLJ279
ORDERThe Court 1. The unsuccessful Indian National Congress (I) candidate Sri C. Veerabhadraiah, the petitioner has questioned the 11th Karnataka Legislative Assembly General Election held on 5-9-1999 for Koratagere Legislative Assembly Constituency (No. 56), Tumkur District declaring respondent 1-Sri C. Channigappa as elected candidate in the counting ofvotes that took place on 6-10-1999 by the Returning Officer, Koratagere Assembly Constituency under Section 100(1)(b) and (d)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. The petitioner-C. Veerabhadraiah from the Indian National Congress (I), respondent 1-C. Channigappa from the Janatha Dal (S), respondent 2-Andanappa from BJP, Smt. Jayanthi, respondent 3 from Janatha Dal (U) and respondents 4 to 6 are being independent candidates, contested for the election to the Legislative Assembly from the State, No. 56, Koratagere Assembly Constituency held on 5-9-1999. In the said election, respondent 1-Channigappa has be...
Sree Visalam Chit Funds Limited Vs. Mrs. S. Suguna and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant251; ILR2001KAR1524; 2001(4)KarLJ226
1. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 1383 of 1987 for recovery of money due to it on the basis of chit transaction. The case of the plaintiff is that the value of the chit is Rs. 50,000/- and it commenced on 9-12-1982. The defendants resisted the suit. On the basis of pleadings the Trial Court has framed certain issues. Ultimately, the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit filed is also not maintainable as it is barred under Section 64(3) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act').2. In this appeal, the point that arises for consideration is.-'Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit on the ground of jurisdiction and also maintainability?'It is an admitted fact that the defendant had deposited certain title deeds as security for the amount due by him to the plaintiff. The properties which are subject-matter of title deeds are admittedly situated in the State of Tamil Nadu. Now the q...
Basavaraj M. and Others Vs. the Karnataka State Pharmacy Council, Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant239
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.H. Chandanagoudar and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.2. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs.-(i) Quashing of the endorsements dated 16-9-1998 and 23-9-1998 bearing No. KSPC/472/1998-99 and KSPC/490/1998-99 vide Annexures-G and G-1 issued by respondent 1 refusing toregister the petitioners as Pharmacists by issuing of writ of certiorari or any other writ or order. (ii) Directing of the respondents to treat the Diploma Certificates issued by the respondent 2-State Council of Vocational Education as equivalent to the Diploma Certificates issued by the Drugs Control Department i.e., respondent 3 and further to register these petitioners as Pharmacists by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other order. (iii) Grant such other relief as are deemed fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition. 3. The petitioners claimed to be the...
Mahalingeshwara Bhat and anr. Vs. M. Ganapathy Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1988; 2002(1)KarLJ124
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioners have questioned the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sullia insofar as issuing of summons to them by rejecting the B-report for the offences under Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on presenting the complaint by the respondent, the matter was referred to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.O. for investigation. After investigation, the Police filed B-report which shows that there are no materials against the petitioners for any of the alleged offences. Further submitted that in spite of the said fact, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected B-report and ordered for issue of summons. It is also contended that the sworn statement was not recorded before taking cognizance and issuance of summons. The last contention is that, as the alleged offences are under Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC, the complaint ought to have been filed...
Taluk Panchayath Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant320
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :--(a) To quash the Annexure-B dated 12-3-1998 and also Annexure-C resolution No. 3 (a), dated 17-3-1998 passed by the 2nd respondent by issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction as the case may be.(b) Issue such other incidental relief which may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and for cost.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-Chairman of the Taluk Panchayath in the district of Shimoga has filed this writ petition with allegation to the effect that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 i.e., Zilla Panchayath, Shimoga have got some powers and duties and they have got separate activities, power and schemes to discharge the object of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. According to the petitioner's case, Zilla Panchayath and Taluk Panchayath and Gram Panchayath discharge their functions in their respective fields in exer...
State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. the Karnataka Casual and Daily Rated W ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ518
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These writ appeals arise out of the order dated 22-9-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed by respondent-'Karnataka Casual and Daily Rated Workers Union' (in short the 'Employees Union'), who had sought for quashing of the Government Order dated 6-8-1990, wherein the Government had ordered that the appointments of all the casual/daily rated employees made after 1-7-1984 shall automatically stand cancelled. They had also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the State Government, the Zilla Parishads and other Local Bodies to confer permanent status to all the daily rated employees who had been recruited after 1-7-1984.2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., : (1990)IILLJ318SC , has taken a view that 'to restrict the regularization of the services of the daily...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »