Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(5)KarLJ432
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J. 1. In these petitions filed by the educational institution and the students studying in the institution the following reliefs have been sought: (a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the order of the 2nd respondent passed in an appeal in File No. F. 42-84/2001-Appeat 15050, dated 1st November, 2001 marked as Annexure-A; (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to grant the NOC under Regulation 5(e) and 5(f) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and with further direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to grant the recognition under Section 14 of the Act from the year 2000-01. 2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are as follows.--The petitioner-institution is incorporated under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and is a linguistic minority institution. The institution in order to meet the requirement of Tamil Teachers sought to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3992; 2003(2)KarLJ358
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. A-1 to A-9 were charge-sheeted by the Kushtagi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324 and 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Trial Court in S.C. No. 125 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, convicted A-l and A-7 for offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. A-4 and A-5 were convicted under Section 324 of the IPC.2. A-l and A-7 have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default to undergo R.I. for six months.3. A-4 and A-5 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two months and since they have already undergone the said period in judicial custody they were set at liberty.4. A-2, A-3, A-6, A-8 and A-9 were acquitted of all the charges.5. The State has preferred Cri. A. No. 36 of 1998 against those accused who are acquitted by the Trial Court.6. A-l and A-7 have preferred Cri. A. No. 949 of 1997 agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR4746; 2003(2)KarLJ181
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner before me is the original tenant against whom a proceeding had been instituted under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 by the respondent who was the then landlady. The Trial Court dismissed the suit principally because, the Court was not satisfied with regard to the status of the respondent who had contended that she was a tenant with one Leelavathy and the Court held that there were certain discrepancies with regard to the production of the rent receipts as also with regard to the so-called agreement between the parties and that therefore, the landlady had no case made out for the grant of the relief. The landlord filed a revision against the order of the Trial Court and the learned Principal District Judge, Dakshina Kannada in Rev. (Rent) No. 107 of 1993 reversed the decision of the Trial Court. The Revisional Court was essentially satisfied that the landlord had made out a bona fide case for recovery of possession and co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR3591
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In this revision petition the common order passed rejecting the application filed under Order 16 Rule 6, C.P.C. and allowing the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A, C.P.C. is challenged insofar as it relates to rejection of the application. In the rejected application the defendant has sought for a direction to the plaintiff Bank to produce the ledger relating to the suit transaction. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/ was paid by the petitioners and the loan account was closed but despite that suit is filed by the Bank for recovery of the amount.2. I have perused the order under challenge. The Trial Court rejected the application holding that the provision mentioned in the applications not applicable and the applicant should have filed application under Order 12, Rule 8, C.P.C. That provision is not applicable. It is Order 11 Rule 14, C.P.C. that applies. The Court should not have rejected the application mer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(1)KarLJ221
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and the respondent's learned Advocate at considerable length. Even though the petition is listed for admission, the respondent is represented and his learned Advocate was instructed to strongly oppose the admission of the petition on merits which he has done. Consequently, in the first instance I have heard the two learned Advocates on merits.2. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Acharya pointed out from the measurement of the premises that they are of a very modest size and that the widow with he) six children is residing there. He submitted that from the fact that she is staying there with the entire family is self-evident that their economic condition is so very weak that they have not been able to secure any other better place and that it would be impossible for them to do so. Many of these submissions were pressed forward by the learned Counsel because he pointed out to the Court that the issue of bona fides an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3861
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Government Advocate takes notice for the State. The petition filed under Section 397, Cr.P.C. against the order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No. 1203/97 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Navalgund. The accused prosecuted for committing an offence punishable under Section 394, IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer six months Simple Imprisonment. In Appeal Crl. A. No. 93/2001 preferred by the petitioner and other convicted accused separately, the Principal Sessions Judge, confirmed the order of the conviction and also the sentence imposed. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision is filed.2. The Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that he would not advert to the merits of the case to challenge the conviction, but however contended that the total period of detention undergone by the petitioner in this case and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR3359; 2002(5)KarLJ245
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner, a practising Advocate of this Court has filed this public interest litigation seeking for a direction to the Union of India not to field Sri P.C. Alexander and Sri K.R. Narayanan, for the post of 'President'. He has also sought for a direction to the Union Government for amending Article 54 of the Constitution by providing Judges and Advocates in the electoral college for participation and voting in the presidential elections on par with the Members of Assembly and Members of Parliament. 2. Heard the petitioner, party in person and perused the material on record. 3. Our Constitution provides for a 'President' in terms of Article 52. Article 53 provides that the executive power of the Union shall be vested with the President. Article 54 provides for election of the President by the elected members of an electoral college consisting of both the Members of the Parliament and the elected Members of the Legislative Assemblies of the State. Article 55 prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2003)ACC254
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the Insurance Company/second respondent in No. CWCB-4/WCA/FC/CR-2/98 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore Division - IV, Bangalore is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.1.2000.2. The essential facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:The parties would be referred to with reference to their rank before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.The parents of the deceased Sri Kumara @ Kulla filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 2,24,000/- from the respondents being the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No. KA-05-A-8829 towards the death of Sri Kumara @ Kulla due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 15.11.1997 at about 2.30 a.m. on Bangalore - Mangalore (NH-48) Road near Tiptur due to the rash and negligent driving of the above said lorry by its driver.3. The petition was resisted by the respondents. Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR633]; 2002(6)KarLJ150; (2002)IIILLJ778Kant
1. This is an appeal preferred by the management. Respondent-workman was served but remained unrepresented. Mr. M.L.N. Reddy was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae for the respondents. 2. The management has preferred this writ appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent claimed to be an employee as conductor in the Management Corporation and claimed to be appointed in the year 1964 and he was removed from the service as unsuitable on 11-8-1969. The respondent-workman did not raise his little finger till he ultimately took advantage of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and raised a dispute on 15-9-1988 after a lapse of nearly 20 years. When the matter went before the Labour Court, the management led evidence and took a stand that the respondent was never appointed by the Corporation and there was no master and servant relationship. 3. The Labour Court on a preliminary issue held that there was no master and servant relationship on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant447
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner filed suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,31,504/- towards damages. On the said (sic) she is required to pay Court fee of Rs.1,48,000/-. However, she filed a miscellaneous petition seeking to prosecute the suit as an indigent person. According to the petitioner, she has no source of income as her husband is a retired Government servant and the two properties she owns are under litigation. The Miscellaneous petition was resisted by the defendants by raising various objections and seeking dismissal of the same. To prove that petitioner is an indigent person, she got examined her husband as FW-1. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition by its order dated 21-1-2000 challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 2. The petitioner filed I.A.I, to implead the Government Advocate and the same was allowed vide order dated 10-8-2000. But, the counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!