Karnataka Court August 2001 Judgments
The Mysore Sugar Company Limited, Mandya Vs. Mohanraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1048; 2001(6)KarLJ64
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner/management has challenged in this writ petition the order of the Labour Court, Mysore, in I.D. No. 50 of 1993 holding that the respondent/claimant is entitled to retire from service with effect from 24-1-1995 and award of consequential benefits on the basis of the said date of retirement. 2. Brief facts of the case are as hereunder: The petitioner is a company manufacturing sugar. The respondent was appointed as mason in the year 1951. While joining the company he did not furnish his date of birth. Subsequently, he was working in the company as a driver. As no documentary proof of date of birth was given by him to indicate his age, the petitioner constituted Medical Board for examining the respondent and similarly placed employees who have not given the date of birth or age at the time of entering into service. The respondent was called upon to appear before the Medical Board. The respondent appeared before the Medical Board. He was examined and the Med...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bangalore Vs. P. Varadarajaiah ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ57
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for both sides on I,A. I which is filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the proposed appellant seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order dated 22-9-1997 of the learned Sessions Judge, passed allowing the respondent's Cri. R.P. No. 19 of 1997 and discharging the latter for the alleged offences, following the direction of Supreme Court in 'Common Cause' a Registered Society through its Director v Union of India.2. On 26-4-1989, the complaint under Section 200 of the CriminalProcedure Code was presented before the learned Magistrate by theappellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') alleging commission of theoffences under Sections 114, 117A and 122 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 ('the Act' in short). On22-7-1996, a memo was filed for the accused before the learned Magistrate, praying to acquit him in the light of...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Anand Vs. the Competent Officer, Secretary to Bangalore Developme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ72
ORDERThe Court 1. The brief facts of the case are that the then City Improvement Trust Board allotted a site in favour of the petitioner at Koramangala, Bangalore. Subsequently, at the request of the petitioner the BDA allotted the site in question in favour of the petitioner in HAL II Stage and possession certificate was issued on 14-12-1978 and he surrendered Koramangala site. As on 24-11-1987 the petitioner had put up a residential houseand was residing therein. The 2nd respondent filed W.P. No. 2610 of 1988 challenging the allotment in favour of the petitioner alleging that the layout was formed by the 2nd respondent-Society and that particular site was earmarked for a park. The BDA filed the statement of objection in that case justifying the allotment in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-B as far back as on 23-3-1988 and denied the allegation that the site was situated in a park. Ultimately on a direction of this Court, it took up an enquiry wherein the petitioner also part...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Bulchand and ors. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Court of the Additio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant498; ILR2001KAR4369; 2001(6)KarLJ127
ORDERThe Court 1. These cases had come up for hearing on 27-7-2001. On that day, neither the Counsel for the petitioners nor the petitioners was present. In view of important subject-matter involved in these petitions and as larger implication to the profession of the Advocates is involved, this Court felt to take the assistance from one of the Counsels from Bar. Accordingly, among the Counsels who were present in the Court, Mr. Keshava Bhat was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and at his request, the matter was adjourned to 3-8-2001, On that day, at the request of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the matter was adjourned to 6-8-2001 with a direction to the Government Pleader to get the stage of O.S. No. 2413 of 1984 pending on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The petitioners assailing the impugned order passe...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Joshi Vs. State by Central Bureau of Investigation/Spe
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ97
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in FIR R.C.N. 10 (A)/2000 on the file of the C.B.I. Bangalore.2. The petitioner was working as Director of Dooradarshan, Bangalore, during 18-1-1999 to 21 -8-1999 in the Sponsored Section and also worked as the Executive Producer of the Dooradarshan in a different section from 31-7-1998 to 22-12-1999. The work tenure of the petitioner between 18-1-1999 and 20-8-1999 and from 8-11-1999 to 21-12-1999 as the Director in the Sponsored Section has become the subject matter of the chargesheet alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 along with the offence of the conspiracy punishable under Section 120(B) of the IPC. The C.B.I, has arrayed 7 accused persons. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the F.I.R.3. It is the contention of the prosecution that a Sponsored Programme Lux Top 10 for telecast on Doordarshan Bangal...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sridhar Vs. State by Cubbon Park Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4490; ILR2001KAR4283; 2002(3)KarLJ412
ORDERG. Patribasavan Goud, J.1. Heard on merits.2. SC No. 9 of 1997, for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, is pending on the file of the learned IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH. 2). Trial is complete and it is at the stage of arguments. In the meantime, by the impugned notification dated 10-8-2001, under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 409 of the Cr. P.O., the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, has withdrawn the said sessions case from the file of the learned IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, and has made it over to the Fast-Track Court.3. Sub-section (2) of Section 409 of the Cr. P.C. enables a Sessions Judge to recall any case before the Additional Sessions Judge at any time before the trial has commenced. On such recalling of that case, Sub-section (3) of Section 409 of the Cr. P.O. then provides that the Sessions Judge may either try the case himself or make it ove...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. J. Krishna Sapalya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ912; ILR2001KAR5432; 2002(1)KarLJ269
ORDERThe Court 1. All these writ petitions are against the awards passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.2. The contesting respondents in these writ petitions raised a contention that as against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, no writ petition is maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as there is an alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and also on the ground that there is no remedy of appeal available to the insurance company on the defences other than those available under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited, Davangere v. Raja Naika and Anr., has submitted that as against an award passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act the insurance company cannot maintain an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Wor...
Tag this Judgment!Anand C. Vs. the Karnatak University, Dharwad and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4815; 2001(5)KarLJ597
ORDERThe Court 1. This petition has come up for orders and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner who is a student in Computer Science Course studying in the 2nd respondent-college is assailing the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 27-2-2001, bearing No. KU/EXAM/ENGG/MPCC/631. Further, he sought for a direction directing the respondents to allow him to appear for the final semester B.E. Exams to be held on 26th March, 2001. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed the 1st semester in second class in April 1997, 2nd semester in August 1997, 3rd semester in July 1999, 4th semester in January/February 1999, 5th semester in second class during January/February 1999, 6th semester in July 1999 and passed the same in 2nd class. Further, he appeared for the 7th semester and passed in second class. The petitioner continued to pass B.E. in Computer Science Examination...
Tag this Judgment!L.V. Basavaraj Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur District, Food ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant81; ILR2001KAR4584; 2001(6)KarLJ519
ORDERThe Court 1. With the consent of the Counsel appearing for all the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner is assailing the impugned endorsement dated 2-4-2001 in No. Asha.Lekka.Tender-1/2000-01(Annexure-F) and declare the Order No. Asha.Lekka.Tender/1/2000-01, dated 26-3-2001 (Annexure-C) issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, null and void insofar as Moodagere Taluk giving tender work to 2nd respondent. Further, sought for a direction directing the 1st respondent to accept the tender form of the petitioner holding that the acceptance of the tender form of 2nd respondent insofar as Moodagere Taluk is concerned is illegal and without authority of law.3. The petitioner is a lorry owner having the business of transport operation in Chikmagalur District. In pursuance of the notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 15-2-2001, calling for tender for the year 2001-02 for transportation of essential commodities to the ration shops in the rural areas from wh...
Tag this Judgment!Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha and anr. Vs. State Public Prosecutor Thro ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR984; 2002(2)KarLJ233
ORDERG. Patribasavan Goud, J. 1. Sri M. Marigowda, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent.2. Heard on merits.3. The petitioners are being prosecuted for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC at C.C. No. 132 of 1992 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ron. They are aggrieved with the impugned order, by which the process is directed against them.4. One T.H. Raibhagi, Managing Director of a partnership firm, filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ron, under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC by the petitioners herein. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. to the jurisdictional police for investigation and report. On investigating into the same, the police have filed the charge-sheet for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, upon which, the learned Magistrate has taken cogni...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »