Karnataka Court October 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sushil Machhan Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR5245; 2003(3)KarLJ149
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner hails from Himachal Pradesh. He completed his 12th standard during the year 2000 from the Himachal Pradesh Board of Education. He was admitted to the first year medical course for the academic year 2000-01 in the second respondent-college. The petitioner contends that he has produced the marks card of the 12th standard examination held during the year March 2000, based on which he was admitted to the course. The petitioner attended the classes regularly and he has undergone the training. When the second respondent-college forwarded the admission papers of the petitioner for approval to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, the first respondent herein, the admission of the petitioner was not approved. The petitioner contends, though he was admitted on the basis of the marks card that he had produced, he had taken examination for improvement of the Physics paper and the marks card of the Physics was furnished to the college after improvement. ...
Shankar M.R. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Department of K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3124
ORDERS--Separately applied to 3rd respondent Institution--3rd respondent says that Government orders and rules applicable to other private education institutions are not applicable to it--Held--That presumption of different service conditions to similarly placed employees is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Nobody can dispute that KCSR provides for pensionary benefits to the employees of private Aided Educational Institutions. If the same benefit is not provided under the rules, the same will be inconsistent with KCSR and as per Rule 6 of the KCSR Rules, it follows that the provisions of KCSR will prevail. Consequently, the petition is entitled to pensionary benefits. Petition disposed of...
Ranjit Chaudhury Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Limited and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR517]; ILR2004KAR1923; 2003(3)KarLJ603; (2003)ILLJ40Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Ranjit Chaudhury is before me seeking for various prayers. The petitioner joined the services of India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for short, the 'Corporation') at Hotel Samrat on 3-10-1982 as Chef-de-rang in terms of an appointment letter dated 23-8-1982, Annexure-C. He was given Kitchen Executive training under the Corporation's Career Development Scheme. He was promoted to the Executive cadre of Chef with effect from 3-4-1989 in terms of Annexure-D. He was posted to work in the promoted cadre at Hotel Airport Ashok. On 6-9-2001, the first respondent-Corporation transferred the petitioner to Hotel Ashok, Bangalore as Sous Chef in his own grade and pay. The allegation of the petitioner is that this transfer is to accommodate one Sri Amitava Roy who was working in Bangalore.2. The petitioner refers to the details in the matter of lease-cum-management agreement between Kumarakrupa Frontier Hotels Private Limited and Bharat Hotels Limited. The petitio...
Asian Electronics Limited Vs. Murugan Power Systems (Private) Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC424; ILR2002KAR4977; 2002(6)KarLJ301
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the 'Act') praying for an order to wind up the respondent-company. 2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture/distribution of moralized polypropylene film, sprayed elements and capacitors. It has its registered office at Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane. 3. The respondent is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. It has its registered office at No. 333-A, Old Madras Road, Vijanapura, K.R. Puram, Bangalore. The nominal share capital of the company is Rs. 40,00,000/- divided into 40,000 equity shares of Rs.100/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital of the company is Rs. 19,08,000/- Apart from others, the main objects of the company is to manufacture, buy, sell, import and export all types of capacitors, power saving devices, electronic instruments and equipments, etc. 4. It is the petitioner-comp...
The Majlis-e-millia, Dargah Hazrath ShamsuddIn Auliya Trust Vs. State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant81; ILR2002KAR4929; 2002(6)KarLJ283
1. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in Majlis-e-Millia, Dargah-e-Hazrath-Shamsuddin Auliya Trust, Bangarpet v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2001(1) Kar. L.J. 126, has preferred this writ appeal.2. The facts of the case as set-out by the appellant which ultimately led the appellant filing a writ petition unsuccessfully are as follows:3. The Majlis-e-Millia, Dargah-e-Hazrath-Shamsuddin Auliya Trust, Bangarpet, Kolar District, is a registered Trust. A Muslim saint by name Hazrath Shamsuddin Auliya lived in Bangarpet Taluk of Kolar District in the early part of the century. Upon his death he was buried in Bangarpet Dargah area and a tomb in his memory came to be constructed. A Dargah Committee was constituted to lookafter and maintain the entire Dargah area, the tomb of Hazrath Shamsuddin Auliya and other structures. The Committee, known as Majlis-e-Millia was in full control of the affairs of the Dargah and its properties and always maintained a priva...
Kashinath Dikshit and anr. Vs. Surgicals and Pharmaceuticals Company ( ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR5191; 2002(6)KarLJ430
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. The company petition is filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act' for short), with a request to sanction the scheme of arrangement so as to be binding on all the members, secured creditors and unsecured creditors of the respondent-company as well as the respondent-company in liquidation. The first petitioner is though a member of the company is not the propounder of the scheme. The second petitioner who seems to be the propounder of the scheme is neither the shareholder nor the creditor of the company in liquidation. 2. M/s. Surgical and Pharmaceuticals Company (Mysore) Limited, the company in liquidation was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and prior to its winding up by this Court by an order made on 4-8-1980 in Co. P. No. 35 of 1978, was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of surgical cotton, dressing bandage cloth and gauze cloth, etc. In view of winding up order, the official liquidator attache...
M.R. Ramachandra Vs. Shantakumari and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2728; 2003(1)KarLJ283
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This revision under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is preferred against the order dated 11th June, 2001 passed by the Court below dismissing the petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) and (d) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The petitioner-landlord filed the petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition premises situate at No. 69, 6th Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore, on the grounds that the premises is required by him for his own use and occupation and that the tenant is guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers. The case of the petitioner under clause (h) is based on his requirement of the premises for purpose of expanding the computertraining centre that is established by him. The Court below disbelieved the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence during the trial to show that a computer training ...
T. Muniraju Vs. A. Venkataswamy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KarLJ473
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The revision filed against the order of the 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in Crl.Misc. No. 31 of 2001. The petitioner and the first respondent made rival claims before the Trial Court for delivery of possession of the Maruthi Van bearing Registration No. KA-05-A-8788 by way of interim custody which was seized by J.P. Nagar Police in connection with C.Misc. No. 1117 of 2001. The petitioner contends that he has purchased the vehicle from the first respondent by a written agreement of sale by paying a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and balance of the loan amount due to the Corporation Bank is being repaid by the petitioner in installments. In support of his argument, the copy of the agreement and the copy of the Bank statement is filed. It is submitted that there is no allegation of commission of any cognizable offence. Therefore, the seizure of vehicle by the J.P. Nagar Police is without jurisdiction and consequent proceedings of reporting seiz...
Mohammed Jaffar and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4693; 2003(1)KarLJ337
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. This reference has been placed before the Full Bench as per the order of the Chief Justice, dated 22-7-2002 and has come up before us. 2. A learned Single Judge was considering a writ petition wherein the order dated 8-12-1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner declaring the sale of the land in Sy. No. 415/1 measuring 7.25 guntas out of the total extent of 1 acre 19 guntas of Susugadi Village in Bhatkal Taluk was challenged. The learned Single Judge, vide his order dated 9-3-2001, having disagreed with the view of another learned Single Judge in the case of Narayan Parameshwar Naik and Ors.v. Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, Uttara Kannada District and Ors., 1999(6) Kar. L.J. 244and as the issue was a question of law of general importance, thought it to be a fit case for reference to the Division Bench and referred the same to decide the following question: ''Whether the land in respect of which occupancy rights have been conferred in favour of a tenant under the ...
ibrahim Farukmiya Karajgi Vs. Kasimkhan and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ563
ORDERB. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the petitioner and carefully perused the case papers including the impugned order made by the Trial Court, whereby, it has dismissed the application I.A. No. V filed by the petitioner herein under Order 18, Rule 5 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC requesting the Court to permit him to examine the party before the Court.2. This is a plaintiffs revision petition against the order dated 27-8-2002 passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No. V.3. The suit of the plaintiff filed before the Trial Court is one for the relief of specific performance, declaration and injunction. During the course of the trial, the plaintiff wanted to give evidence in Court, but the Court below stated to have directed the plaintiff to give his affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4 of the CPC. It is stated that the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 18, Rule 5 of the CPC requesting the Court to permit the petitioner to lead oral ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »