Karnataka Court August 2001 Judgments
Mohamed Yakoob Vs. Karnataka Board of Wakf, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ455
ORDER1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26899 of 2000 claims to be the President of Committee of Mutavallies of Jamia Masjid, Nanjangud, which Committee is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 34511 of 2000. Both the writ petitions pertain to the same subject-matter relating to the management of the affairs of the aforesaid masjid. Hence, both the petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts leading to these writ petitions are stated as under.-Jamia Masjid, Idgah Masjid and the grave-yards situated in Nanjangud Town are Wakf properties. It is claimed the same are being managed by the Committee of Mutavallies (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 34511 of 2000) constituted under a deed dated 31-7-1953 produced as Annexure-A. A complaint was lodged as per Annexure-B in case No. L.C.C. 7 of 1989 by respondents 3 to 6 (2 to 5 in Writ Petition No. 26899 of 2000) before the Wakf Board seeking removal of mutawallies etc., on certain allegations. After du...
Tag this Judgment!Arasegowda Alias Arasappa and Another Vs. State by Nelamangala Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4538; 2001(5)KarLJ601
The Court1. These two appeals arise from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22-3-1997 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Special Case No. 23 of 1988. Cri. A. No. 258 of 1997 is filed challenging the conviction of the appellants for the contravention of Clause 9 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensing Order'), which is punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the EC Act') and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each with default clause. Cri. A. No. 455 of 1997 is filed by the State challenging the correction of acquittal of the accused/respondents of Clause 10 of the Licensing Order and praying to enhance the sentence.2. Since the appreciation of evidence and the point to be considered in both the appeals are common, these appeals are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment.3. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Mohammad Haji Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ26
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the appellant's learned Advocate and the learned Government Advocate at considerable length and on merits.2. The learned Single Judge in this case has confirmed the order whereby the land measuring approximately 4.10 acres has been granted to the appellant and the reason for it is because it was pointed out by the Forest Department that the land comes within the boundary of the reserve forest and that under the Forest Reservation Act there is a total bar to grant any such lands. The learned Single Judge has come down very strongly on the authorities for what has transpired and has also directed an enquiry to be held for the purpose of identifying the officers responsible for this and has also opined that appropriate action be taken against those officers. We fully endorse that finding.3. The main point canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that he had applied for regularisation and that the State Government had set up a committee to examine these ca...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. C. Dinakar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ213
ORDER1. Union of India has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1020 of 1999, dated 8-2-2001 wherein the Tribunal has quashed the appointment of Sri R.K. Raghavan, (respondent 7) as the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the CUD, at the instance of Sri C. Dinakar, IPS, respondent 1, herein on the ground that the petitioner had acted against the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineet Narain and Another v Union of India and Others, regarding the procedure to be followed for the selection and appointment of Director of CBI.2. Facts.--The basic premise laid down by respondent 1 in the O.A. before the Tribunal is that both he and respondent 7 were appointed to the Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPS') in the year 1963. On the date of appointment of Director of CBI on 31-12-1998 the inter se seniority positions of the first four o...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Packaging Industries, Bangalore and ors. Vs. Gold Crest Finance ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant510; 2002(3)KarLJ430
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, a partnership firm who had been arrayed as a respondent in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act by the respondent in this writ petition and which application had been ordered by the learned Single Judge of this Court as per order dated 14-7-2000 in C.M.P. No. 23 of 2000 has called in question the validity of this order.2. The brief facts leading to the petition are that the respondent-firm had presented an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) which had come to be numbered as C.M.P. No. 23 of 2000 before this Court and had in that petition, sought for appointment of one Mr. M.C. Ravi Kumar as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate certain disputes between the applicant and the above petitioner-firm and its partners.3. The basis for such an application appears to be that the respondent-firm had advanced certain mon...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Aircraft Division, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR622]; 2001(6)KarLJ325
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has preferred this intra-Court appeal. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the management questioning the award of the Labour Court, directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent with 50% back wages from the date of claim statement.2. The foundational facts are not in dispute. By communication dated 9-6-1986 (Annexure-A), the appellant-management offered appointment to the 1st respondent on the post of Plastic and Fibre Worker-B in its Aircraft Division. Clauses (b) and (c) of the said letter are material which read as under:'(b) Your continuation/confirmation of appointment will be subject to satisfactory verification of your credentials/testimonials, etc,(c) Your appointment is temporary for one year. Your service will terminate automatically on expiry of the period of appointment referred to above unless the period of employment is extended in writing on such terms and condi...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Vijayan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ535; ILR2002KAR1190; 2002(1)KarLJ309
ORDER1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsels on both sides.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed on 28-2-2001 praying to quash the FIR in No. 1 of 1994, registered against petitioner by the Lokayuktha Police, Mangalore, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, in the interest of justice.3. A few material undisputed facts are that:Petitioner joined the Government service in Karnataka Government, as an Excise Sub-Inspector in the year 1969. When he was working as such, in the year 1994, at Bantwal in Mangalore, South Canara District, the said Crime No. 1 of 1994 was booked against him for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) on the complaint of one P. Harishchandra, Police Inspector, B.O.I. (Bureau of Investigation), KarnatakaLokayuktha, Mangalore. The complaint against petitioner-accused was to the effect that during the period between 26-11-1969 and 5-2-199...
Tag this Judgment!Jayashree, B. Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ329
ORDERThe Court1. This case is taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the order dated 24-8-1994 (Annexure-G) passed by the second respondent and the appellate order dated 23-2-2000 (Annexure-K) determining a sum of Rs. 99,060/- as the amount payable due to under valuation of the property purchased by her.2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the orders impugned under the following circumstances:The petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 24-4-1987 purchased the property located at No. 204, Binnamangala n Stage Extension, Bangalore City, on payment of consideration of Rs. 7,53,000/-. By a show-cause notice dated 25-11-1988, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Detection of Under valuation of Stamps initiated proceedings under Section 45-A(3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 for determination of the correct market value of the property in question on the premise that correct or ...
Tag this Judgment!Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley by L.Rs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas770(Kar); ILR2001KAR5401; 2002(1)KarLJ370
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. This reference is made under Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act by His Lordship Justice S.R. Bannurmath for deciding three questions formulated by him in view of the law of general importance involved in the reference. The Hon'ble Chief Justice has placed this matter before this Bench for appropriate orders.2. The questions which are referred for our consideration are:(1) In a proceeding, initiated under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the death of the complainant, whether any other person could be permitted to prosecute the complaint and under what provisions of Criminal Procedure Code? (2) If it is held that any person could be permitted to prosecute the complaint who is the competent person who could be permitted to prosecute the complaint? (3) Whether that person has to prosecute the complaint personally or whether he could be permitted to prosecute the complaint through a power of attorney holder? 3. These questions arise in the bac...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshaswi Cashew Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC465(Kar)
P.V. Reddy, C.J. 1. The appellant is the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 33953 of 1996, The petitioner in that writ petition is a partnership firm. The appellant questioned the demand notices-- annexures 'B' and 'F' dated November 4, 1996 and November 30, 1996 calling upon it to pay penalty of Rs. 2,00,269 apart from the tax due for the year 1992-1993. The penalty was demanded under Section 13(2)(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. This penalty was for non-payment of tax within the stipulated time. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order. This Court granted an order of stay on March 7, 1994, The writ petition was dismissed and even the appeal filed thereon was dismissed on November 15, 1995. Thereupon, the impugned notice was issued. The appellant contended that in view of the stay order granted by this Court, there was no default in the payment of tax and, therefore, the period during which stay was imposed should be excluded in calculating the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »