Karnataka Court September 2001 Judgments
C. Shivashankar Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4907; 2002(1)KarLJ562
ORDERThe Court 1. Petitioner, an officer working in the office of the first respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ('the Mahanagara Palike' for short), Bangalore, is before this Court in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, primarily questioning the final gradation list of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) as on 1-1-2001 prepared and published by the Mahanagara Palike, by its office order hearing No. 312(6). PR. 200/00-01, dated 15-6-2001. The incidentalprayer in the writ petition is to set aside the promotion granted to the second respondent herein to the next promotional post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) by the first respondent-Mahanagara Palike, by its official memorandum in No. B12(6). PR. 052/2001-02, dated 25-7-2001.2. Brief facts are:Petitioner had joined the services of the first respondent-Mahanagara Palike as a Works Inspector on 19-12-1974. He was promoted to the post of Electrical Supervisor on 21-1-1976. The post of El...
Tag this Judgment!Subhan Rao and anr. Vs. Parvathi Bai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant134; ILR2002KAR724; 2002(1)KarLJ606
H. Rangavittalachar, J.Hon'ble Judges: H. Rangavittalachar, J.1. These two appeals arise against a common judgment and decree in O.S. Nos. 62 of 1974 and 116 of 1982 and confirmed in R.A. Nos. 183 of 1989 and 40 of 1985 and the same facts and question of law is involved in both the appeals. Hence both the appeals are disposed off by this common order.2. Both the appeals are filed by the plaintiff to the two suits, O.S. Nos. 62 of 1974 and 116 of 1982, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Chickodi.3. The subject-matter, involved in the two suits are, 4 items of Agricultural land; 2 items are situate at Belagali Village, measuring in all about 36 acres 17 guntas and another 2 items situate at Kabbur Village measuring in all 34 acres 37 guntas. According to the plaintiffs these properties originally belonged to one Sadashiva Rao Siddoji Rao Parvathrao Desai (hereinafter referred to as 'Siddoji Rao' for brevity). Plaintiff 2-Prafulla Devi is the wife of Siddoji Rao, plaintiff 1-Subhan...
Tag this Judgment!The Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal and anr. Vs. R. Swami ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR289]; ILR2001KAR4835; 2002(1)KarLJ1; (2002)IIILLJ29Kant
1. These writ appeals are filed against the order dated 10-1-2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 3535 and 3536 of 1999 (R. Swaminathan and Anr. v. The Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal and Anr.), wherein the learned Single Judge has quashed the termination orders dated 28-1-1999 - Annexure-E and F and directed the appellants to reinstate the respondents in their respective posts of Assistant Professors.2. The respondents were appointed as Assistant Professors on probation for a period of two years vide Orders Annexure-C and D, dated 23-12-1997 and 17-9-1997 respectively. They were terminated from their services during the period of probation.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly come to, the conclusion that the services of the respondents could not be terminated without completion of the probation period. It is also stated that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the clear distin...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. the Manager, Purchase, Hindustan Machine Tools L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC676; 2003ACJ105; ILR2002KAR1905; 2002(1)KarLJ500
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. These two appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 6-3-1999 in M.V.C. No. 141 of 1994 on the file of M.A.C.T.-V, Bangalore Rural District.2. M.F.A. No. 3122 of 1999 is by the claimant and M.F.A. No. 3893 of 19.99 is by the insurer.3. In the claim petition, the claimant alleged that he is an employee of M/s. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited ('H.M.T.' for short); that on 6-7-1993 he had gone to Bangalore along with his colleagues to purchase some materials for his employer, in the employer's van bearing No. GAS 587. When returning to Tumkur, the driver of the van drove the van in a rash and negligent manner and while attempting to overtake another vehicle, he saw another vehicle coining from the opposite direction and suddenly applied the break. As a result, the door of the van suddenly opened and the claimant who was sitting by the side of the door fell on the road and the van ran over his legs, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. He therefore fil...
Tag this Judgment!Shanta Rathod and anr. Vs. Mahantesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC656; 2003ACJ491
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. M.F.A. No. 3535 of 1999 and Cross-objection No. 28 of 2000 arise from M.V.C. No. 1768 of 1998, on the file of Addl. M.A.C.T., Saundatti. M.F.A. No. 3536 of 1999 and Cross-objection No. 29 of 2000 arise from M.V.C. No. 1769 of 1988. They relate to the same accident and involve common questions. Appeals are filed by the owner and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident and the cross-objections are filed by the claimants. For convenience the appellants will also be referred to as the owner and insurer. The cross-objectors will also be referred to as claimants or by name.2. The respective claimant in the two claim petitions (Mahantesh B. Hanashi and Ashok Baligar) alleged that on 31.8.98 when Mahantesh was proceeding on scooter bearing registration No. CTB 6243 from Ugargol to Saundatti, it developed some snag; therefore, he got down and along with one Ashok Baligar started pushing the scooter towards Yellamma Gudda; that at that time a Tempo Tax bearing r...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Ramappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR35; 2002(2)KarLJ12
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. These writ appeals have been preferred by the Government of Karnataka against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby he has declared Sub-rule (6) of Rule 13 of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1965 (in short the 'Rules') as amended by Notification No. HUD 647 MLR 95, dated 20-12-1995 to be constitutionally invalid and has quashed the notifications dated 30-5-2001 (Annexure-R2) and dated 2-6-2001 (Annexure-F) issued by the State Government pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the said sub-rule. 2. The writ petitions, out of which the present writ appeals arise, had been filed by the elected Councilors of the City Municipal Councils and Town Municipal Councils constituted under the Karnataka Municipalities Act (in short the 'Act') questioning the validity of the above sub-rule and the notifications at Annexure-F and R-2 on the ground that the said sub-rule conferred arbitrary and naked powers on the State Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Lucktex Iii, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR468]; ILR2002KAR3929; 2002(2)KarLJ546
B.K. Sangalad, J.1. The case of the applicant-company is that they are the manufacturer of garments employing about 250 workmen and paying wages as per the terms of the contract of employment and that the ESI contributions are paid regularly. It is further stated that in order to promote cordial employee-employer relationship, the respondent formulated a scheme known as 'Quality Incentive Scheme' as per which the incentive amount is calculated and paid to the concerned workmen once in three months. It is also stated that it is purely voluntary, quality and quantity oriented and that the employer has the right to withdraw the scheme without assigning any reasons and therefore, it is not part of wages. It is also stated that the respondent-Corporation has called upon the applicant to pay contribution on the quality incentive and the applicant made the payments under protest. Therefore, the applicant prayed for a direction to the appellant herein for the refund of the amount collected as ...
Tag this Judgment!A.Y. Nayak (Since Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Personnel Manager, Syndicate B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR144; 2002(1)KarLJ85
1. An order made by the disciplinary authority dated 11-1-1990 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority dated 20-3-1990 and the orders made in a review petition by the reviewing authority dated 30-5-1991 are the subject-matters of this writ petition, by a dismissed employee, dismissed from the services of the respondent-Syndicate Bank ('the Bank' for short).2. During the pendency of this writ petition before this Court, the dismissed employee has expired. With the permission of the Court the legal representatives of the dismissed employee, namely his wife and his minor child have come on record and they are prosecuting the petition filed by the deceased petitioner.3. The deceased petitioner was an officer of the respondent-Bank. He was governed by the provisions of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.4. While he was working as a Branch Manager during the period 25-8-1984 to 1-2...
Tag this Judgment!Bistappa Rama Naik Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR191; 2002(1)KarLJ105
1. Petitioners in both these revision petitions have challenged the order passed by the II Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, in Appeal No. DAAA.AP. 329/86, dated 15-9-1989, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi, in case Nos. LRM.SR. 6620 and 6621, dated 31-12-1981.2. Petitioners applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 5 guntas and 2 acres, 3 guntas in Sy. No. 16 of Hadalagi Village in Sirsi Taluk, belonging to the 3rd respondent. The Land Tribunal after holding an enquiry came to the conclusion that the original tenant/Bhimappa, father of the petitioner in LRRP No. 13 of 1990 had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the father of the 3rd respondent herein, who was the landlord and delivered back possession of the said land in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, the 'Act...
Tag this Judgment!Hanamawwa Vs. B. Alla Baksh and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5566; 2002(2)KarLJ164
ORDER1. This contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of the prohibitory order dated 30-6-1997 passed on I.A. No. I in O.S. No. 78 of 1997 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilagi.2. Neither the complainant nor his Counsel is present. On earlier occasion also the complainant was not present. As the facts culled out vide interim order dated 30-6-1997, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilagi in the Original Case No. 78 of 1997 directed as 'you Opponent No. 5 is hereby restrained not to disburse the compensation amount to Opponent Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of land in Survey No. 18B/1 and 18B/2 of Kandagal Village to the extent of plaintiffs' alleged 1/3rd share till disposal of LA. No. I on merits'. But the allegation is that the same has not been complied with. As per the averment, the endorsement of the process server shows that the said order was served on respondent 1 on 2-7-1997. It is also stated that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) decreed th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »