Karnataka Court August 2001 Judgments
A.B. Vishalamma Vs. A.B. Siddamallappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3435; 2001(5)KarLJ636
ORDERThe Court1. Respondents 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs in the Court below filed a suit O.S. No. 47 of 1985 against the petitioner herein and the third and fourth respondents for the relief of partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule property. The suit was valued at Rs. 45,000.00 and therefore it was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (JuniorDivision) was Rs. 10,000.00 as on that date. The said suit was decreed ex parte. The defendants preferred a First Appeal against the judgment and decree before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court there was an amendment to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act by virtue of which the jurisdiction to decide appeals of the value to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000.00 was conferred on the District Court. Consequently, this Court transmitted the appeal pending before it to the District Court at Chickmagalur. The judgment and dec...
Tag this Judgment!M. Puttegowda and anr. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ16
1. Appellants being aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge dismissing their writ petitions thereby upholding the notice for considering the no-confidence motion submitted by the members of the Panchayat in the meeting scheduled to be held on 7th of August, 2001, have come up in these appeals.2. Shortly stated the facts are:Appellants were elected as members of the Bhogadi Gram Panchayat from their respective constituencies. Appellant 1 was elected unopposed for the post of Adhyaksha and appellant 2 was elected as Vice-President in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. The election was held on 21st of March, 2000. The term of the office was to come to an end somewhere in the end of the year 2002,3. On 10-3-2001 more than l/3rd of the total number of members of the Panchayat gave a notice for calling a meeting for considering the no-confidence motion against the appellants to the Assistant Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dharwad Vs. I.F. Kulkarni and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ348
1. The grievance of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India is that though both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had found as of fact that the 1st respondent who was its employee, had voluntarily retired from service, but still had directed for his reinstatement with all service benefits, except the emoluments for the period from the date of the acceptance of resignation till the date of his reinstatement.2. Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the case of an employee who opts for voluntary retirement, Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short referred to as the 'Act') will have no application. Section 11-A reads as under:'Powers of Labour Court, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudi...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR295]; 2002(3)KarLJ345; (2002)ILLJ329Kant
1. The appellant-Corporation has presented this appeal feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge reinstating the dismissed workman with back wages.2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:The respondent-workman was appointed as badli conductor on 15-11-1972 and later as conductor on 6-6-1973 on probation for a period of two years. Before expiry of the probationary period, his services were terminated on 24-1-1975 holding that the workman was unsuitable for the post. No enquiry was conducted prior to his termination. The appeal and revision filed by the workman, subsequently, did not yield any result. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act but the Government refused to refer the dispute. After coming into force of Section 10(4-A) of the Act, the workman filed an application challenging the dismissal. The application was contested by the management contending that there was no suitable job for the...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vishwanath Vs. the State Transport Authority, Bangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4944; 2001(6)KarLJ149
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the same questions of law arises.2. W.P. No. 4880 of 2001 is filed by one N. Vishwanathan, W.P. No. 4733 of 2001 by Nisar Ahmed and W.P. No. 5603 of 2001 by the Karnataka State Transport Corporation.3. In all these writ petitions, petitioners have questioned the grant of counter-signature made by the Karnataka State Transport Authority, in favour of the second respondent-Venkateshwara Bus Union in respect of the variations of the route 'Chikkaballapur to Tirupathi' with an additional vehicle.4. Facts will be referred to with reference to W.P. No. 4880 of 2001.5. The second respondent-Venkateshwara Bus Union is a stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage service on the route 'Tirupathi to Chikkaballapur' under a permit granted by the Transport Authority of Andhra Pradesh under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in pursuance of an inter-State agreement entered into between the State of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.6. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Another Vs. Dr. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)KarLJ628
The Court 1. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 5422 of 1988. The appellants 1 and 2 are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The 3rd defendant in the suit is placed exparte and he has been impleaded as 2nd respondent in this appeal. The first respondent/plaintiff filed suit claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the damage caused to his car by negligent felling of a tree on 18-5-1988 near Kidwai Hospital, Bangalore. The undisputed facts of the case disclose that in front of Kidwai Hospital there was a huge tree, which was almost decayed and was posing threat to the passers by. Besides, the Corporation was contemplating the widening of the road, Kidwai Hospital authorities requested the Corporation to take effective steps for cutting and removal of the tree. In that regard, the Corporation also took necessary steps by initiating proceedings and entrusting the job of cutting the tr...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Karnataka State Public Instruction (Education), Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant504; ILR2001KAR4338; 2001(6)KarLJ402
ORDERThe Court 1. In this petition the petitioners have challenged the award dated 17-11-1999 passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S. No. 189 of 1998, produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. 2. This writ petition raises important questions of law which have a bearing on the powers/functions of the Lok Adalat to decide a dispute. What are the parameters of its statutory power in the matter of determining a dispute? Does its role limited to merely striving to bring about a compromise or can it go beyond that and decide the dispute even where one of the parties to the dispute is not agreeable for a compromise but is keen to fight it out on merits? What is the role of the State as a defendant in a declaratory suit? Is it a mere formal party or should it evince substantial interest in the matter in its capacity as the representative of the people in order to preclude any public injury that would result in the event of the plaintiff succeeding in his endeavour? What is the remedy available to ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Soubhagya Vs. the Returning Officer, Horalavadi Grama Panchayat a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant501
ORDERThe Court 1. Petitioner in this case has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification No. ELN.GP. 46/99-2000, dated 10-3-2000 along with Annexure-B and also rejection of the nomination of the petitioner to the post of Adhyaksha under Annexure-E, dated 25-3-2000; for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to reserve the post of Adhyaksha of 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat in favour of SC Women by rotation by following the order of the Election Commissioner dated 16-2-2000 as per Annexure-H and as provided under Article 243-D(4) of the Constitution of India and to hold election for the said post by providing the said reservation and further to direct the respondents to accept the nomination of the petitioner for the post of Adhyaksha which is reserved in favour of persons belonging to ST as the petitioner being elected from the reserved constituency for ST Women of Mullur-II Constituency of the 3rd respondent and to fill up the said post...
Tag this Judgment!Binani Industries Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4751; [2003]129STC199(Kar)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.The petitioners in these petitions are all registered dealers/non-resident dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' or 'K.S.T. Act', for short) who, inter alia, are engaged in the business of leasing machinery, equipment and motor vehicles. These petitions relate to challenge to the constitutional validity and/or interpretation of Section 5C of the Act, the validity and effect of circulars dated April 12, 1996 and October 23, 1999 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clarifying the effect of Section 5C, and the consequential orders of assessment, proposition notices/show cause notices issued by the assessing and revisional authorities. As these cases involve common questions of law they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order. Re : W.P. No. 4913 of 2000 : 2. Petitioner in W.P. No. 4913 of 2000 is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act', for short). It is engaged in the activity of leasing m...
Tag this Judgment!Balappa Basamanappa Kosji and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant44; ILR2002KAR1524
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners in public interest praying for quashing of the impugned orders dated 28th February, 1983, 6th February, 1984 and 24th March, 1988 produced as Annexures-A, B and C respectively.2. The petition raises interesting questions of law governing local bodies vis-a-vis the State on the question whether the direction by the State to the local body to sell the open space/park was proper and legal and/or whether the same is contrary to the express provisions of lawprevailing as on the date of action? These questions fall in the sphere of both Administrative Law and Constitutional Law and they assume special significance in a modern welfare state which is bound by the directive principle enshrined in Article 48A of the Constitution of India, inter alia, providing for protection of environment etc. But, these questions cannot be decided in the abstract. They are required to be considered and determined only against the backgro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »