Karnataka Court February 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.
H.S. Umesha Prasad and anr. Vs. the Karnataka Electricity Board, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1452; 2002(2)KarLJ448
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J. 1. The common complaint of the petitioners herein is that their juniors who have been appointed subsequent to them are getting one additional increment consequent upon interpreting a Board Order to the disadvantage of the petitioners. Hence, they have prayed for quashing of Annexure-C. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: The first petitioner joined service in Karnataka Electricity Board ('K.E.B.' for short) as Assistant Engineer on 2nd September, 1977 and the second petitioner joined service of the Board also as Assistant Engineer on 4th September, 1977. Their pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 720-1405 which was subsequently revised from time to time. Both the petitioners are at present working as Assistant Executive Engineers. The last revision of the pay scale was done on 6-2-1999 fixing the scaleat Rs. 8550-18550 for Assistant Executive Engineers. The grievance of the petitioners is that, in applying these scales of pay to the Assist...
H.V. Venkatesh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC253; ILR2002KAR3666; 2002(2)KarLJ519
ORDER1. The appellant has filed a memo for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat. The learned Counsel for appellant submitted that this is a fit case for reference to Lok Adalat.2. The learned Counsel for respondents 2(a) to 2(c), submitted that unless all parties agreed, the appeal cannot be referred to Lok Adalat. He relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Basappa and Another v Shobha and Others, 2001(6) Kar. L.J. 87, ILR 2001 Kar. 4704, in particular, the following observations:'None of the parties had filed any application before the Court for referring the matter for settlement before the Lok Adalat. There is also no indication in the order sheet that the learned Counsel representing the parties had made any request before the learned Judge for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat. ... A perusal of the order sheet gives an impression that the learned Judge had taken the responsibility of getting the matter settled by the parties without there being any...
Smt. A.R. Vishalaxi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ654
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of late Sri A.G. Ravindra and they are before this Court seeking for various directions with regard to the unfortunate death of Sri A.G. Ravindra on 2-7-1997.2. The petitioner's residence is provided with a telephone connection bearing No. 41703 which is attached to the Telephone Exchange of Nalkeri, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. The power supply is drawn from the KEB Power Line. On 2-7-1997, at about 8.40 p.m. the residential Telephone No. 41703 rang and late Sri A.G. Ravindra lifted the receiver to answer the telephone call. The said telephone created electric shock resulting in the death of the petitioner's husband due to electrocution through the telephone. On hearing the screening sound of late Sri Ravindra, the first petitioner rushed to the spot. The telephone line caught fire and was burnt down. Telephone instrument incidentally also got burnt down. Thereafter, a case was registered in terms of Annexure-A....
Smt. A. Vishalaxi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC444
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioners are the Legal Representatives of late Sri A.G. Ravindra and they are before this Court seeking for various directions with regard to the unfortunate death of Sri A.G. Ravindra on 2.7.1997.2. The petitioner's residence is provided with a Telephone connection bearing No. 41703 which is attached to the Telephone Exchange of Nalkeri, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. The power supply is drawn from the K.E.B. Power Line. On 2.7.1997, at about 8.40 p.m. the residential Telephone No. 41703 rang and late Sri A.G. Ravindra lifted the receiver to answer the telephone call. The said telephone created electric shock resulting in the death of the petitioner due to electrocution through the telephone. On hearing the screaming sound of late Sri Ravindra, the first petitioner rushed to the spot. The telephone line caught fire and was burnt down. Telephone instrument incidentally also got burnt down. Thereafter, a case was registered in terms of Annexure 'A'. A re...
Corporation of the City of Mangalore and anr. Vs. Kasturba Medical Col ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ145
ORDERG. Patribasavan Goud, J.1. The respondent-management of the Medical College runs a students' hostel for the purpose of its students. The respondent claimed exemption in respect of the building housing the hostel, from tax under Section 110 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('Act' for short). The Commissioner of the first petitioner-Corporation of the City of Mangalore demanded tax under Section 109 of the Act in respect of the building housing the hostel. Respondent went in appeal before the second petitioner-Appeal Committee, which upheld the demand on the ground that the respondent was making profit out of running of the hostel. The respondent went in appeal before the learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, at M.A. No. 19 of 1995. By the impugned order dated 13-2-1997 at Annexure-B, the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and reversed the order under appeal by holding that the building housing the students' hostel is entitled for exemption under Sec...
Bharamappa Puttappa Uppar and ors. Vs. Smt. Sushilabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ577
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ appeal is by a tenant who has sought for conferment of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and who is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge remanding the matter to the Land -Tribunal though the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in his favour.2. The tenant being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge has come up in this appeal. This Court normally would not interfere with an order of remand. It only enables the parties to have an opportunity and an authority to look into the matter once more in the light of the various materials that may be placed and the contentions urged by the parties. A remand order is justified only when there is some purpose to be served and when parties are in a position to place before the authority any material, for the production of which they have been deprived of an opportunity and if it can have a bearing on the outcome of the decision of the La...
Thomas Mates Gudinho Vs. the Election Commission of India, New Delhi a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ36
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Karwar City and a voter of No. 172, Karwar Assembly Constituency. In the 1999 elections, results of which were declared on 6-10-1999, one Vasanth Kamalakar Asnotikar was declared as having been elected. That has been challenged by the 4th respondent in Election Petition No. 19 of 1999 pending on the file of this Court. In the said election petition, the 4th respondent has sought the following reliefs:(i) A declaration that the election of V.K. Astonikar to fill Seat No. 172, Karwar Assembly Constituency is void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for having committed corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the said Act;(ii) For a declaration that he has been duly elected from the said Constituency under Section 101(a) of the Act and declare him as having been elected under Section 101(b) of the Act for having secured more number of valid votes than the said V.K. Astonikar who has been d...
Sri Thomas Mates Gudinho Vs. Election Commission of India, New Delhi a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant232; ILR2002KAR3078
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Karwar City and a voter of No. 172. Karwar Assembly Constituency. In the 1999 elections, results of which were declared on 6-10-1999, one Vasanth Kamalakar Astonikar was declared as having been elected. That has been challenged by the 4th respondent in Election Petition No, 19/1999 pending on the file of this Court. In the said election petition, the 4th respondent has sought the following reliefs :(i) a declaration that the election of V. K. Astonikar to fill seat No. 172-Karwar Assembly Constituency is void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for having committed corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the said Act.(ii) For a declaration that he has been duly elected from the said Constituency under Section 101(a) of the Act and declare him as having been elected under Section 101(b) of the Act for having secured more number of valid votes than the said V. K. Astonikar who has been dec...
Smt. Manjula B.R. and ors. Etc. Vs. Karnataka State Bar Council and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant274
Raveendran, J.1. These petitions involving common questions are heard together by consent and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners in these petitions have successfully completed three years Law course in the Rajiv Gandhi College of law, Matteswaram, Bangalore, which is affiliated to Bangalore University, and obtained degrees in law in the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.3. When the petitioners wanted to enroll themselves as advocates, the Karnataka State Bar Council informed them that they could not be enrolled as the college where they underwent the course of study (Rajiv Gandhi College of Law) has not been recognized by the Bar Council of India (BCI for short).4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed these petitions for the following reliefs :a) for quashing of the endorsement issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council, rejecting the applications for enrolment on the ground that Rajiv Gandhi College of Law is not recognised by BCI (wherever such endorsements are issued) :b...
Smt. Manjula B.R. and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Bar Council and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1544; 2003(2)KarLJ380
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. These petitions involving common questions are heard together by consent and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners in these petitions have successfully completed three years law course in Rajiv Gandhi College of Law, Malleswaram, Bangalore, which is affiliated to Bangalore University, and obtained degrees in law in the years 1998, 1999,2000 and 2001.3. When the petitioners wanted to enroll themselves as Advocates, the Karnataka State Bar Council informed them that they could not be enrolled as the college where they underwent the course of study (Rajiv Gandhi College of Law) has not been recognised by the Bar Council of India ('BCI' for short).4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed these petitions for the following reliefs:(a) for quashing of the endorsement issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council, rejecting the applications for enrolment on the ground that Rajiv Gandhi College of Law is not recognised by BCI (wherever such endorsements are iss...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »