Karnataka Court January 2002 Judgments
S.V. Kadanagoudar Vs. the Managing Director, Karnataka State Seeds Cor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1043]; ILR2002KAR2337; 2002(3)KarLJ65
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The appellant was appointed as a Second Division Clerk by the 1st respondent-Corporation on a temporary basis for four months, on 7-8-1990, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 800/- + Rs. 60/- as medical allowance. In the order it was stated that the appellant is liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. The appellant's temporary appointment was extended from time to time, but ultimately by an office order dated 31-1-1998 the respondent 1 terminated the service of the appellant in terms of Clause 3 of the Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited Service Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').2. The grievance of the appellant was that he was appointed on a temporary basis on 7-8-1990 and continued in service till he was terminated from service on 31-1-1998 and was not regularised. The appellant challenged his termination before the learned Single Judge.3. The learned Single Judge relied on Rule 6(c) of the Service Rules of the fi...
Tag this Judgment!United Breweries Ltd. Vs. Khodays Brewing and Distilling Industries Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC130(Karn)
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CFC., is directed against the order dated 4.1.1994 in O.S. No. 747/93 rejecting the application I.A-1, filed by the plaintiff for issue of an order of temporary injunction against the defendant.2. The facts of the case in brief leading up to this appeal are as follows:The parties would be referred to with reference to the rank before the trial court. The plaintiff M/s. Kalyani Breweries Limited, Calcutta, filed the suit O.S. 747/93 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking for a decree against the defendant restraining the defendant M/s. Khodays Brewing and Distilling Industries Limited, from using the mark 'Black Label' on the beer manufactured and sold by it in the District of Bangalore and in any other districts in the State of Karnataka and anywhere in India and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from passing off its beer as for the beer of the plaintiff and for a mandatory injunction dire...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthaiah Vs. N. Ramegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2431; 2002(2)KarLJ569
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. The writ petitioner who claims to be a grantee of 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 12 of H. Ranganathapura Village, Tarikere Taluk has challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A by which order the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who had ordered the restoration of lands in favour of the petitioner.2. The proceedings started by a direction of the Deputy Commissioner in case No. LND2.C.R. 194/96-97, dated 30-6-1998, to enquire 'whether the terms of grant made in favour of the petitioner was violated and whether petitioner was a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community'.3. The Assistant Commissioner after enquiry by his order dated 16-6-2000 has held that the terms of the grant has been violated and ordered resumption of the lands in favour of the writ petitioner.4. This order came to be challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur by the purchaser Ramegowda and Nanjundego...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ13
1. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4849 of 1998 has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jamkhandi and is directed against the judgment and award dated 18-4-1998 passed in L.A.C. No. 312 of 1997on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamkhandi. This land acquisition case was clubbed along with L.A.C. Nos. 591, 299, 301, 305, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315 and 318 of 1997 and the Reference Court has rendered the main judgment in L.A.C. No. 591 of 1997 in which case witnesses have been examined and documents have been marked. Following the judgment and award rendered in L.A.C. No. 591 of 1997 all other land acquisition cases have been disposed off on the same terms. As against the said judgment and award dated 18-4-1998 rendered in all the land acquisition cases referred to above the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred these appeals under Section 54(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act.2. As against the judgment and award made in L.A.C. No...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavendra Rao and ors. Vs. N. Veeravenkatrao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ150
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs and respondents were defendants -in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties are referred to as in the Trial Court.2. The 7th defendant was impleaded in the suit and the cause title was amended. After service of notice, he filed written statement but thereafter remained ex parte before the Trial Court. However, while issuing the certified copy, the 7th defendant has been omitted in the cause title. Hence, he was not made a party before the first Appellate Court as well as in this second appeal. Since he was a party in the suit and had been duly served, the result of this appeal shall bind upon him.3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 74 of 1990 against the defendants for possession of 19 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy. No. 216 of Rampur Village in Raichur Taluk, which is the suit schedule property. Rangamma, the mother of 7th defendant was the Inamdar of the said land. After her death, the 7th d...
Tag this Judgment!Hosabayya Nagappa Naik and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1342; 2002(3)KarLJ53
1. In these appeals the appellants seek for setting aside the order dated 20th March, 2001 of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 9477 to 9486 of 2001 which had been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 28-9-2000 passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner rejecting their applications made under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).2. The appellants had filed the said applications under Section 77-A of the Act contending that they are the persons actually in possession and cultivation of the lands mentioned in their applications and that their forefathers had been cultivating these lands as tenants, that byignorance due to illiteracy they had not made applications for conferment of occupancy rights under Section 48-A of the Act, that in view of introduction of Section 77-A by amending Act 23 of 1998 with effect from 1-11-1998 they hav...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunanda Prabhakar Bhavana and ors. Vs. the Member, Karnataka Priv ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR376]; ILR2002KAR1183; 2002(3)KarLJ260
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. Aggrieved by the orders made in I.A. No. 21 by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in case No. KPIE 3 of 1982, dated 11-5-1994, legal representatives of late Sri Prabhakar, are before this Court. 2. The issues raised in this writ petition lie in a very narrow compass. When Sri Prabhakar was working as a Headmaster of Sri Shivaji High School, Kadoli, Belgaum, his services came to be terminated by the school authorities. Aggrieved by the said order, Sri Prabhakar, had filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, Sri Prabhakar, had expired. Petitioners herein who claim to be the legal representatives of late Sri Prabhakar, have filed I.A. No. 21 to come on record to prosecute the appeal filed by late Sri Prabhakar. That application filed by the petitioners is rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 11-5-1994. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court. 3. I have carefully perused the orders made by th...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Samiulla Vs. Smt. Madina Begum and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1899; II(2002)DMC225; 2002(3)KarLJ332
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. The petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the Family Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 444 of 1999, dated 9-11-2001. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the Family Court and the respondents in the present petition are the respondents 1 and 2 in the Family Court in Cri. Misc. No. 444 of 1999. The petitioner has married the first respondent on 10-3-1996 at Davangere as per the rites and customs prevailing in the Muslim community as per the Muslim Law with a fixed mehar amount of Rs. 11,000/- and out of the said wedlock, respondent 2 herein was born on 10-4-1997. The further case of the respondents that the petitioner has demanded money from her parents. Whenever he demanded money, the available funds were provided, but the time had come that the parents of respondent 1 expressed their inability to satisfy any more demands of the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner started ill-treating respondent 1 and showing his cruel...
Tag this Judgment!Mukunda Vs. Dr. K. Radhakrishna Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ573
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. These two petitions are directed against the common order passed by the revisional Court whereby the respondent's revision was allowed and the petitioner's revision was dismissed.2. Mr. Goulay, learned Counsel who represents the petitioner raised a preliminary issue viz., that the revision filed by the respondent in the year 2001 challenging the adverse finding recorded by the Trial Court in the year 1990 under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was hopelessly time-barred and that the lower Court ought to have upheld this bar and dismissed the petition at its very inception. He has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors., : [1970]1SCR335 wherein the Supreme Court had occasion while dealing with revision proceedings in that instance to point out that despite the fact that no specified period of limitation had been prescribed that a revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R.A. Parangusa Das Vs. Dr. N. Ugramurthy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)KarLJ350
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the 3rd respondent in Dr. N. Ugramurthy v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore and Others, 1998(6) Kar. L.J. 67 is directed against the order dated 25-6-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition preferred by the 1st respondent and directing the removal of the appellant from the office of the post of Director, Sanjay Gandhi Accident Hospital and Research Institute, Byrasandra, Jayanagar East, Bangalore - 11 with effect from 20-6-1997 by issuing a writ in this regard. Obviously the learned Single Judge has issued a writ in the nature of quo warranto and declared that the continuation in office of the appellant on and after 20-6-1997 was unauthorised but nevertheless saved the actions and official duties discharged by the appellant by applying the de facto theory recognised and approved by the Apex Court in the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju v State of Andhra Pradesh : 1981CriLJ876 .2. The brief ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »