Karnataka Court April 2001 Judgments
Smt. Parimala Vs. Banking Service Recruitment Board, Bangalore and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR2991; 2002(4)KarLJ257
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The petitioner, in this petition, is a former employee in the services of the State Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). In this petition, she has called in question the correctness of the order dated 4th December, 1999 passed by the Assistant General Manager of the Bank, third respondent terminating her services; and sought for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to regularise her services in the Bank. 2. The facts leading to this petition lie in a narrow compass and they may be briefly stated as hereunder: (a) The petitioner is an M.Com. with first class marks. She has also passed Senior Grade Typewriting (English) Examination. While she was in service as Manager at Raichur Mahila Pattana Sahakari Bank, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Banking Services Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Board'), inviting applications from deserving applicants to apply for the posts of Clerks, Typists, Clerk-c...
Tag this Judgment!Natioinal Insurance Company Limited, Banglore Vs. Smt. H.D. Nagarathna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC716; 2002ACJ1267; 2001(4)KarLJ566
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 24-5-1999passed by M.A.C.T., Bangalore City in M.V.C. No. 2222 of 1997.2. On the request of the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants with agreement of Counsel for appellant, this appeal is being heard and disposed of on merits.3. The Tribunal after having recorded the findings on all issues in favour of the claimants (which we need not go in detail) awarded a total sum of Rs. 16,56,640/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application to the date of deposit of the amount. The Tribunal held that both the owner and insurer of the vehicle in question are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the insurer has come before this Court by way of appeal.4. We have heard Sri H.G. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the insurer-Insurance Company as well as Sri F.S. Dabali, Counsel for the respondents-claimants as well as Sri S.P. Shankar, Counsel for the res...
Tag this Judgment!Bpl Ltd. Vs. Inter Modal Transport Technology Systems (Karnataka) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: [2001]43CLA228(Kar); ILR2001KAR5373
Raveendran, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed against the order dated 29-1-1998 passed by the learned company judge dismissing CA No. 64 of 1997 (in CP No. 17 of 1989).1. OSA No. 6 of 1998 filed by BPL Ltd., the purchaser of the assets of Inter Modal Transport Technology System (Karnataka) Ltd., being aggrieved by the rejection of CA No. 64 of 1997, filed by Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. ('KSIIDC') Ltd.1.1 OSA NO.7 of 1998 is filed by Raj Kotak, an ex-director of Inter Modal Transport Technology System (Karnataka) Ltd. He has not challenged the order dismissing CA No. 64 of 1997, but contending that the company court ought have held that the sale in favour of BPL Ltd., was void even on the ground of irregularities in the sale. He has also challenged thefollowing observations recorded by the learned company judge in the course of the order : (i) that the company and its directors have made every effort to nullify the sale by filing writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Supra Foundry Services (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(132)ELT543(Kar)
ORDER1. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides in this petition.2. The petitioner's learned Counsel submitted that this is a case in which undoubtedly, the penalty that was levied was in respect of an incident that took place prior to the introduction of Sections 11AC and 11AB of the Act and it is his contention that the imposition of a penalty would still be justified.3. We refrain from reproducing the various submissions canvassed before us, because the respondent's learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the recent decision of Supreme Court reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 52 (S.C.), Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. In a short judgment, the Apex Court has reiterated the well settled proposition of law that a provision of the present Act cannot have retrospective application obviously in view of the fact that the consequences are penal.4. We may only add that this is a case in which the Tribunal even set aside the imposition of the duty that...
Tag this Judgment!The Yamakanamardi Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. Raju B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ67
ORDER1. Both the cases involve common question of law and fact and between the same parties. However, two different cheques were issued and separate prosecutions are launched by way of private complaint. The peti-tioner herein is the complainant before the Trial Court. In respect of the discharge of loan the respondent issued the cheques. The said cheques were dishonoured. The statutory notice as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued and after expiry of 15 days time and within one month the complaints were filed. On the filing of the private complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the accused. The accused after appearance, filed the revision before the Sessions Judge, Belgaum challenging the issuance of summons on the ground that the complainant is a Co-operative Society. In respect of the loan liabilities, the cheques which were issued and the said liabilities were made subject-matter of arbitration and an award was passed. The...
Tag this Judgment!Guruanna Vadi and Another Vs. the General Manager, Karnataka State Roa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001ACJ1528; AIR2001Kant275; ILR2001KAR2879; 2001(5)KarLJ322
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 92-A, 92(2), 94, 95(1), 95(2), 96, 96(2), 140, 140(5), 141, 145, 149, 163-A, 163-A(1), 163-A(3), 163-B, 166, 173 and 217;Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994;Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 110 and 110-F;Constitution of India - Articles 14, 39-A and 41;Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 33, Rule 9-A;Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923Cases Referred:Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others, AIR 1997 SC 412;Ramdev Singh v. Chudasama and Others and Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and Another, 1999 ACJ 1129, (1999) 1 Guj. L.R. 631 (Guj.);Kesavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer, 1971 ACJ 219 (Ker.), 1971 Ker. LT 380;Mangilal v. Parasram, AIR 1971 M.P. 5, 1970 ACJ 86 (M.P.);M/s Marine and General Insurance Company Limited v. Dr. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 Bom. 53, 1976 ACJ 288 (Bom.);Haji Zakaria v. Naoshir Cama, AIR 1976 A.P. 171, 1976 ACJ 320 (A.P.);British India General Insurance Company Limited v. Captain Itbar S...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Manjunatha Vs. Mazagon Dock Limited, Mumbai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR707; 2001(6)KarLJ183
ORDERThe Court 1. In filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who is presently working as Plant Manager in the establishment of respondent-Company at Mangalore, had prayed for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22-1-1999 in No. PERS/(0)1775 passed by the respondent 2, copy as at Annexure-M to writ petition, in passing whereof, the respondent 2 had communicated the petitioner that the findings of 'Sealed Cover' shall not be acted upon in the case wherein any penalty is imposed on the officer and further for direction to the respondents to issue writ of mandamus or order or direction to open the sealed cover maintained in the case and to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and further to extend the benefit thereunder.2. The respondents had filed the detailed objection statement. In doing that, they had contended that it was not opening the sealed cover on the ground that the petitioner was awarded with punishment of censur...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmanna Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ51
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner in filing the instant writ petition had challenged the order dated 15-7-1989 passed by the respondent 2, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition, in passing whereof, the respondent 1 had discharged the petitioner from the military services of the respondent 1 as he was found guilty in a summary Court-martial proceedings held preceding the above discharge order. The petitioner further prayed in the writ petition that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The respondents are represented by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, Sri S.N Rajendra. At the instance of the Court, Col. Bhupendra Singh (Retd.), a practising Advocate of this Court, had been requested to assist the Court. Accordingly, he had been appointed as Amiens Curiae in the case. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Biradar, appearing along with Sri G.G. Chagashetty, while taking me through the pet...
Tag this Judgment!S.K.V.i. Khadi Bhandar Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC392(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The appellants who style themselves as a Khadi Bhandar and are doing business in Mangalore have assailed the correctness of revisional order passed under Section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. By his order dated January 17, 1998 the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has set aside the appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore, dated December 23, 1996. The point in issue revolves around the question as to whether various items sold by the appellants which according to them come under the approved category of products manufactured and sold by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, would be exempt from sales tax or not. The original assessing authority by order dated August 25, 1995 rejected the contention put forward by the appellants that they would qualify for such exemption and it was against this order that the appellants filed an appeal. The appellate authority through a detailed speakin...
Tag this Judgment!Guruanna Vedi and anr. Vs. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC350
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Keeping in mind the importance of various questions arising regarding the scope and applicability of Section 163A which was inserted by the Parliament in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act') by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 54/1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act') the Division Bench on 3rd of March, 2000 after formulating certain questions of law which were likely to arise and affect a large number of appeals or proceedings pending before this Court requested Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench to lay down law for its uniform applicability in the State of Karnataka and to avoid difference of opinion amongst various Benches.Facts:On 28.3.1987, one Pradeep Wadi and his younger brother Praveen Kumar Wadi were proceeding on Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. CAX 9954. Praveen Kumar Wadi was driving the motor cycle and Pradeep Wadi was the pillion rider. They were proceeding from Bangalore t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »