Karnataka Court September 2001 Judgments
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Central Offices, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5459; 2002(1)KarLJ543
ORDERThe Court 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24-5-1999 passed in M.A. No. 1 of 1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanjangud, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 5-1-1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nanjangud, in O.S. No. 76 of 1998 allowing I.A. No. VI filed by the respondent under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. 2. The petitioner is a State Road Transport Corporation. It is engaged in providing efficient and inexpensive transport services to the people. As part of its services, it provides retiring rooms for commuters at the Nanjangud Bus Stand, In this connection, it licensed the respondent to be in charge of maintaining and running these rooms on a monthly licence fee of Rs. 1,300/- for a period of three years effective from 10-5-1993. This was extended by additional two years. Thus the licence period expired by 9-5-1998. 3. However, during March 1995 the l...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. K. Madhava and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ188
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Government Advocate as also the learned Advocate who represents the two respondents. This is a case in which the two respondents who were the members of the police force had faced a disciplinary proceeding on the basis of certain allegations that were levelled against them. We refrain from going into the details and the finer points of the case because the enquiry ended in an adverse order whereby the disciplinary authority took the view that the respondents are liable to be dismissed from service. The respondents filed appeals as they were entitled to and the Appellate Authority set aside the punishment, recorded the finding that there were several lacunae in the proceedings and therefore remanded the case for a de novo enquiry from the stage of the charge. The respondents thereafter approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and assailed the appellate order principally on the ground that the Appellate Authority having set aside...
Tag this Judgment!Munichannaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant337; ILR2001KAR5253; 2001(5)KarLJ534
ORDERThe Court1. The petitioners have filed these petitions praying for the following reliefs:i. Issue a writ or direction or order including a writ of certiorari, quashing the Order No. RHS(P):318/82-83, dated 3-1-2000 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-J. ii. Further issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot the sites formed out of Sy. No. 73 or any other plots to the petitioner. 2. The petitioners stake claim to the above stated reliefs on the ground that they are persons belonging to weaker section of the society and they are entitled for grant of house sites. It is their case that though they had applied to the authorities concerned, the applications were not considered by the authorities. In that connections, it is submitted, theyfiled W.P. Nos. 6609 to 6646 of 1996 for a direction to the authorities to dispose of their applications. In the said writ petitions an order dated 18th April, 1996 was made by the Court directing the respondents to consider ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Basavarajappa Vs. Tahsildar, Davanagere and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)KarLJ619
ORDERV. Gopal Gowda, J. 1. Since the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus, rule issued and with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of 4.28 acres of land in Survey No. 76/P of Hosakundawada Village in Davanagere District, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider his application at Annexure-D to measure the land and to fix up the boundaries. His grievance is that the adjacent owners had removed the boundary stones. The first respondent-Tahsildar has issued the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E, dated 20-6-2001 stating that since suit in Original Suit No. 28 of 2001 is pending between the parties, at this stage it is not possible to consider his application under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The petitioner is seeking to quash the said endorsement and a direction to the first respondent to consider his application at Annex...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vasudeva Vs. D.R. Neelappa Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ183
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. In these intra-Court appeals, writ petitioners are the appellants before us. They had filed the writ petitions with the prayer to restrain the respondent-Commissioner of the Bangalore City Corporation and its other officers from entering on the part of the conservancy lane on which they are alleged to have put up certain constructions and demolish the same. The learned Single Judge after referring to the relevant statutory provisions; had negatived the prayer (K. Vasudeva and Ors. v. The Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Ors., 2001(6) Kar. L.J. 360).2. The appellants are exerting their right to remain on the conservancy lane in question on the basis of a registered lease deed dated 16th February, 1954 which was entered into between their father and the Corporation (Annexure-B to the writ petition) whereunder the lessee had undertaken to plant or grow trees in the above lane with a very clear stipulation that they will not put up any construction of any nature....
Tag this Judgment!Basappa and anr. Vs. Shobha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4704; 2001(6)KarLJ87
ORDER1. The issues involved in these writ petitions lie in a very narrow compass. Therefore, though the matters are listed for preliminary hearing in B Group, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, they are taken up for final hearing.2. Rule nisi.3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.4. In my order, I would be referring to the status of the parties in these writ petitions as stated before the Trial Judge.5. First petitioner is one Sri Basappa, son of Sri Shiddappa Chi-nagundi. Second petitioner is one Sri Siddappa, father of the first petitioner. They are the defendants in the original suit filed by first respondent herein who is the wife of Sri Basappa. Second respondent-Smt. Roopa is the daughter of Sri Basappa.6. Wife had filed a suit under the provisions of the Hindu Marriages Act, for a decree of maintenance. The same was registered as O.S. No. 118 of 1997 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhandi. The maintenan...
Tag this Judgment!Shailaja Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ761; 2002(1)KarLJ247
ORDERThe Court 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 525 of 1998 (P.C. No. 23 of 1998) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Haveri.2. The petitioner is the seeds merchant of Haveri. On inspection of his shop on 5-6-1997 by the Seeds Inspector, samples of maize were seized after following due procedure and the same were sent to the analyst for seed analysis at Dharwar. On receipt of the same, as the analyst reported that the seeds were found to be sub-standard as not meeting the minimum requirement or conditions, the Seeds Inspector has proceeded to prosecute the petitioner in the present case. The complaint was lodged on 16-5-1998. Challenging this lodging of complaint asbeyond limitation, the present petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings.3. As per Section 19 of the Seeds Act which is the penal provision, the maximum punishment prescribed is fine of Rs. 500/- for the first ...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.i. Limited Vs. I.T.i. Ex/Vr Employees/Officers Welfare Association ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR54; 2002(1)KarLJ333
K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the ITI Limited which was the respondent 1 before the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions filed by the employees who had opted for voluntary retirement pursuant to the scheme evolved by the ITI.2. These appeals are filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, granting relief in favour of the officers of ITIwho had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'VRS' or VR Scheme'). The said scheme was introduced by the appellant to reduce the surplus manpower and bring down the strength of employees to optimum levels. In pursuance of it, different public sector companies formulated different VRS to encourage employees to retire from services. As per the scheme introduced by the appellant, certain benefits were conferred on the persons who opted for VR. The benefits under the scheme are as hereunder:'Benefits under the scheme: 4.1 An employee whose request for Voluntary Retirement i...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Leasing Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1386; 2002(1)KarLJ517
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner in this petition is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is stated that it is engaged in non-banking financial activities like leasing, corporate financing, hire-purchase and other allied financial services. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of endorsement dated 20th October, 1997 issued by the third respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G to the writ petition, and also has prayed for a further direction to the third respondent to issue a fresh registration certificate in terras of the provisions contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), without insisting upon the petitioner for payment of stamp duty in terms of Article 20(3)(a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. 3. Facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may briefly be stated as hereunder. 4. According to the case set out by the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Delphine Ann Mascarenhas Vs. MervyIn J.A. Menezes and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4883; 2001(6)KarLJ81
1. This is plaintiff's first appeal. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 1994 made in O.S. No. 61 of 1992 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Mangalore.2. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to with reference to their ranking before the lower Court.3. The plaintiff is the daughter of one late Denis A.J. Saldanha. The plaintiff and her brother, one late Francis M.B. Saldanha, who is the husband of the second defendant, were the only children to the said Denis A.J. Saldanha. Mrs. Rosalie Saldanha was the wife of the said Denis A.J. Saldanha.4. Denis A.J. Saldanha had executed his last Will and testimony on 25th of December, 1972. He expired on 6th April, 1975. The Will executed by him was probated as P and SC No. 47 of 1975, on the file of the Court of District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. Late Francis M.B. Saldanha was the executor named in the Will. Probate dated 28th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »