Karnataka Court June 2001 Judgments
The United Western Bank Limited, Bangalore Vs. the Company Law Board, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas63(Kar); (2001)4CompLJ194(Karn); ILR2001KAR4427
Tirath Singh Thakur, J. 1. Nearly sixty thousand depositors, most of them senior citizens, have waited endlessly for the repayment of the deposits made by them with Kirloskar Investments and Finance Limited, a Non-Banking Financial Institution. Demands for repayment of the deposits having failed to evoke any response from the Company, over one thousand applications were moved before the Company Law Board seeking its intervention in terms of Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The said provision inter alia empowers the Company Law Board to direct repayment of any deposit or part thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do to safeguard the interest of the Company, the depositors or the public in general. Upon consideration of the applications received by the Board, it has in terms of an order dated 21st of March, 2000, issued directions to the Company for repayment of the deposits in accordance with...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraj and Another Vs. Ammayamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC439; ILR2001KAR4004; 2001(5)KarLJ516
Tirath Singh Thakur, J.1. This miscellaneous first appeal arises out of a decree passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 98 of 1987 restraining the defendants-appellants herein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit schedule property.2. The respondent claims to be the lawfully wedded wife of one Shri Muniswamappa, father of appellant 1 and the father-in-law of appellant 2. O.S. No. 3272 of 1983 was filed by her initially before the 12th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the said Shri Muniswamappa and the appellants herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit schedule property. With the coming into force of the Family Courts Act, the said suit was transferred to the Family Court for trial and disposal, where it was renumbered O.S. No. 98 of 1987 and eventually decreed by the impugned judgment....
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Nirmala Gupta Vs. the Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Boa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-2001
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1465
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned endorsement at Annexure-Q dated 6.9.2000 cancelling the site allotted in favour of her husband and forfeiting 25% of registration amount. The site was cancelled on the ground that no construction was put up in the allotted site within two years.2. The impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed as the cancellation is not made by the Chairman who issued the allotment letter or Housing Board but by its Commissioner.3. The allotment was made in the year 1976 and possession was handed over in the year 1977. The cancellation is made in the year 2000 after a lapse of 14 years. Such cancellation should have been made immediately after lapse of two years period prescribed for putting -- up the construction after, issuing notice. That has not been done. Cancellation made after 14 years is arbitrary.4. In paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition it is stated that the petitioner applied for sanction of plan by the letter at Anne...
Tag this Judgment!H. Kemparaju Vs. the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4722; 2002(4)KarLJ363
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Government Advocate Sri B.V. Muralidhar for the respondents 1 and respondents 2. Though notices were served on the 3rd and 4th respondents, they remained absent and also heard Sri S.J. Chouta, the learned Counsel for the 5th respondent. 2. The facts which are not seriously in dispute are that the 3rd respondent is a co-operative society. It has Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Accountant, Cashier and Clerks, etc., in its establishment. The post of a Secretary became vacant in the year 1997 and the Board of Management decided to call for willingness of 17 eligible employees of the bank. Out of 17 eligible employees only the petitioner and the 5th respondent gave their willingness. It was also decided by the Board of Management to conduct a written and viva voce test for selecting the candidate to the post of Secretary. In the meantime, the petitioner who is junior to the 5th respond...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Sundar Raj Vs. the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) and Land ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4067
The Court1. The appellant who is the claimant filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 27-1-2000 passed in LAC No. 473 of 1980 by the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore partly allowing the reference for enhanced compensation.2. The appellant is the owner of the property bearing No. 53, Risaldar Street, Seshadripuram, Bangalore, and in the said property an extent of 3,320 sq. foot with structure thereon was acquired vide final notification published in the Gazette on 8-7-1975 for the purpose of continuation of Sweepers Colony Road to join Subedar Chatram Road, and II Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore. The possession of the property was taken over on 30-4-1976. The award of the LAO was passed on 5-2-1976 and approved on 17-3-1976. The reference under Section 31(2) was concluded on 7-4-1978 in previous LAC No. 95 of 1976. After the establishment of the City Civil Court at Bangalore, the above case was renumbered as LAC No. 473 of 1980.3. There is a notification unde...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Central Offices Vs. Durgapp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1156]; ILR2001KAR3971; (2002)ILLJ41Kant
Chidananda Ullal, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation to challenge the order dated June 30, 2000 in W.P. No. 15317/1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. In passing the said order, the learned single Judge while confirming the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, he had reduced the back wages from 75% to 25%.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, henceforth in brief referred to as the KSRTC, Sri Govindaraj, argued that it was a clear case of pilferage of the revenue of the KSRTC and further more, it was also a case that the respondent-workman was involved in 30 cases of such pilferages earlier to the incident of pilferage in the case in hand. It was also pointed out by him that the Labour Court had held the dispute in favour of the respondent-workman on the ground that the charge was not proved. According to Sri Govindaraj, the Labour Court would have as w...
Tag this Judgment!Devanur Grama Seva Sahakari Sangh Limited Vs. Virupaxayya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR223]; ILR2001KAR4839; 2002(2)KarLJ6
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Appellant which is a registered society under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge in W.P. No. 10204 of 1997, dated 14-9-1998 wherein the Single Judge has upheld the order of the Labour Court in KID No. 85 of 1991 passed by the Labour Court, Hubli, has come up in this appeal.2. Shortly stated the facts are:Respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as the respondent') was appointed as a clerk with the appellant in the year 1981. By an order dated 11th of March, 1991, the service of the respondent was terminated by giving one month's notice. Respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Karnataka Amendment), 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act'). Service of the respondent was terminated on the ground that he was a chronic absentee and that he was irregular in the performance of his duty. It was done by passing a resolution. Respondent assa...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Bijapur Vs. S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2855; 2001(6)KarLJ171
Tirath Singh Thakur, J.1. These appeals arise out of an order made by the III Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, enhancing compensation payable to the landowners from Rs. 7,500/-per acre to Rs. 7 per sq. foot. The controversy arises in the following circumstances.-2. Land measuring 6 acres and 36 guntas situate in Sy. No. 269/1A of Talikote in Muddebihal Taluk of Bijapur District, was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in terms of a notification dated 15th of December, 1983. Yet, another notification meant to correct certain errors in the description of the land was issued a few months later on 9th of August, 1984. The acquisition was for the benefit of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Talikote. An Award was in due course made by the Land Acquisition Officer concerned on 11th of October, 1985, determining a sum of Rs. 7,500/- per acre towards compensation payable to the owners....
Tag this Judgment!Janatha Tourist Corporation and anr. Vs. Indo U.S. Wire Casting Ltd. a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant65
K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the 19th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 1754 of 1992. The appellants are the defendants in the trial Court. The first respondent filed the suit for recovery of money in a sum of Rs. 88,850/- with costs and interest. The first appellant is a common carrier to whom the consignment of pure nickel was entrusted to be transported from Bombay to Bangalore. 5 bags of pure nickel was the consignment, in all weighing about 250 kgs. to be delivered at Bangalore. But only two bags weighing about 97.5 kgs came to be delivered at Bangalore and three bags were missing and in two bags that were delivered, there was shortage of quantity. Respondent 2 is the consignor. First respondent is the consignee. In respect of non delivery and short delivery, statutory notice came to be issued. The value of the goods is shown as Rs. 68,850/-. In addition, towards loss of value of the consignment, damages in a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Sheshrao and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3805
H.N. Narayan, J.1.This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga convicting accused Nos. 1 to 3 of offences punishable under Sections 342 and 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., in default to undergo Section 1. for a period of 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge further sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 342, read with Section 34, I.P.C. and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.2. The appellants-accused were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections. 342 and 302 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. All the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In proof of the charges, prosecution relied on the evidence of 16 witnesses, 13 documents and 9 material objects. After...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »