Karnataka Court September 2001 Judgments
Government Tool Room and Training Centre's Supervisory and Officers' A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR580]; 2002(2)KarLJ245
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The Government Tool Room and Training Centre's Supervisory and Officers' Association is before me questioning the endorsement dated 10-11-2000, Annexure-G bearing No. ALC-1/TUA/CR-14/2000-01.2. The officers and the supervisory staff working in the GTTC resolved to form a Trade Union in the name and style of the 'Government Tool Room and Training Centre'. In terms of the said resolution, they submitted an application dated 5-6-2000. Proceedings were initiated in the matter of registration. There was correspondence between the petitioners and the respondent-authorities. Finally, the respondent-authorities issued an endorsement in terms of Annexure-G, dated 10-11-2000. In the said endorsement, the authority has refused to register the 1st petitioner as a Trade Union on the ground that the applicants are not the workmen and besides the applicants are supervisory officers and managers. The authority, on the ground of the petitioners being not workmen within the meani...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Shankar Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5344; 2002(2)KarLJ329
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. It is alleged the appellant-petitioner who has worked as Junior Research Fellow and as Lecturer in the institution of 3rd respondent was fully eligible for appointment to the post of Reader in Audio logy as he is a holder of Ph.D. Degree in Speech and Hearing which was conferred in March 1989, but the 4th respondent who did not possess Ph.D. Degree on the date of application was selected. He applied in pursuance of advertisement dated 27-5-1995 and appeared for interview on 12-7-1995 but ignoring him the 4th respondent was selected. The learned SingleJudge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability as not amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution.2. In response to the show-cause notice, statement of objection was filed. The learned Counsel for the respondent state that the petitioner as well as 4th respondent who applied for the post of Reader in Audio logy were interviewed by the Committee and as per the condition one can be selected if...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshoda and ors. Vs. Sindhura and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ538
ORDERThe Court 1. This civil revision petition at the instance of the defendants in Original Suit No. 262 of 2000 is directed against the order dated 22-2-2000 passed on Interim Application No. 6 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore, whereby the learned Trial Judge rejected the said application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC and declined the prayer of the petitioners-defendants.2. The brief facts are that respondents 1 and 2 were minors and they were represented by their guardian mother and filed the suit against the petitioners-defendants and the third respondent herein who is their father and the plaintiffs-respondents are seeking for declaration that they are entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties, for rendition of accounts and for granting decree by delivery of possession of their share in the suit schedule properties.3. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the properties come out of the ancestral nucleus with imp...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Siddar Murthy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. 2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before thi...
Tag this Judgment!J.L. Prasad Vs. the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ491
ORDERThe Court 1. Petitioner claims that the respondent [Southern Railway] entrusted the work of 'Bangalore City - Mysore conversion from MG to EG -Earthwork in forming bunds and cutting and construction of bridges for the proposed diversion of track from Ch. No. 19350 to 21690 [KM 19//-8 to 21/11-12] between Kengeri and Hejjala stations - Detour No. 1' to the petitioner under agreement dated 14-8-1987, subject to the annexed general conditions. The petitioner claims Clause 63 of the General Conditions provide for settlement of disputes by arbitration.2. The petitioner alleges that the work was completed by him on 31-3-1991; that the respondent committed several breaches of contract and thus became liable to pay compensation for the losses suffered by the petitioner; that petitioner issued a notice dated 13-9-1997 calling upon the respondent to settle the claims or in the alternative appoint an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising on account of non-settlement of his claims; ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lakshmidevamma Vs. K. Chinna Reddy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ594
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties. 2. The petitioner who is a plaintiff in O.S. No. 310 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pavagada, filed an application numbered as I.A. 14 under Order 26, Rule 9 of the CPC forappointment of a Surveyor as Court Commissioner to measure the land of the plaintiff and defendants. That application was dismissed by order dated 7-6-2001 on the ground that similar application I.A. 7 was dismissed on 2-11-1996 and it has become final and conclusive and operates as res judicata. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dismissal order of interlocutory application would not operate as res judicata and in support of this argument he has placed reliance on several decisions rendered by: (a) Supreme Court in Pandurang Ramchandra Mandlik (deceased) by L.Rs and Anr. v. Smt. Shantabai Ramchandra G...
Tag this Judgment!J. Kennedy Paul Vs. State by Yelahanka Police Station, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4494; ILR2001KAR4741; 2002(1)KarLJ529
ORDERThe Court 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.2. Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the parties, as the same can be disposed off, is taken for final disposal.3. The petitioner-accused 2 was released on bail in Cr. No. 206 of 2001 under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the default of prosecution in not filing the charge-sheet within the time-limit prescribed. While so releasing, the Court below has imposed certain conditions on the petitioner, one of the conditions, namely Condition No. 6 reads as follows:'He shall surrender before this Court immediately after filing of the charge-sheet by the Police',4. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged this condition as illegal and not maintainable one, on the ground that releasing on bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has to be deemed as releasing on bail under the provisions of Chapter...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Sadath and anr. Vs. State by Virajapet Town Police Station, Kodag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ101; ILR2001KAR5205; 2002(2)KarLJ76
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Both these petitioners, who are arraigned as A. 2 and A. 1 respectively, in Crime No. 109 of 2001 of the respondent-Police Station for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act'), have approached this Court with their petition under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. when their simitar application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9-7-2001.3. The prosecution case is that, on 22-6-2001, at about 10.30 a.m., at Meenupete of Virajapet City in Kodagu District, both the petitioners were found present when the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Virajapet appeared there with his party on receiving credible information that petitioners were in possession of ganja. Then the person of A. 1, who is petitioner 2 herein, was searched. He was found in possession of 12 packets of ganja weighing 5 grams each, totalling 60 grams, while A2, petitioner 1 herein, was ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Puttarajaiah Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)KarLJ391
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing of the order of suspension which is produced as Annexure-A in this writ petition.2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Revenue Officer in the Bangalore City Corporation, Chamarajpet Branch, Bangalore. The officers of the Lokayukta having found that the petitioner is possessing the properties disproportionate to his income, registered a case against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Similarly the Lokayukta registered one more case against another employee Sri C. Andani having found that he was also possessing the properties disproportionate to his income. Pursuant to these proceedings the Corporation kept both the petitioner and Sri C. Andani under suspension under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 until further orders awaiting the report from the Lokayukta. Thereafter, after some time the Corporation wrote a letter to the Lokayukt...
Tag this Judgment!Lachchu and anr. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur District, Bij ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5648; 2002(2)KarLJ369
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. This matter had been listed yesterday.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners had cited during the course of arguments a decision in Shivamurthayya v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : ILR1997KAR3233 Therefore, I directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to take notice. Accordingly, he had taken notice.3. Heard Sri Basavaraj Godachi this day further on issue of rule and interim order.4. It was argued by him that in passing the impugned order by the respondent 1-Assistant Commissioner dated 21-6-2001, copy at Annexure-H to writ petition, he had ordered for vesting of the subject land of 26 acres 15 guntas in Sy. No. 60 belonging to the petitioner on the ground that the respondent 2 whose husband had filed Form 7-A was not entitled for grant of the land in view of the circumstances that she was owning land more than the limit and that the land stands forfeited to Government as the same had vested in State.5. Sri Godachi found fault with the order, for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »