Karnataka Court May 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.
Bhimappa Channappa Kapali (Deceased) by L.Rs and ors. Vs. Bhimappa Sat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3055; 2003(2)KarLJ148
N. Kumar, J. 1. The learned Single Judge of this Court while setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, rejected the Form 7 filed by the appellant, which order was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in appeal. Appellant challenged the said order before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2001 and the judgment in the writ appeal came to be set aside and the matter was remitted to this Court with a direction to restore to its file Writ Appeal No. 7109 of 1999 and to dispose of the case afresh after considering the two crucial aspects, viz.: (i) Whether a tenancy had been created by Shivawwa in favour of the appellant and the entries in the record of rights (referred to above) could be taken as proof thereof; and (ii) If there was any tenancy whether that would survive the death of Shivawwa, particularly in view of the admitted position that after gift deed was created by Shivawwa in the year 1961 she had only a limited interest in the property. 2. In order to answer the ...
Narasareddy and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2758; 2003(2)KarLJ158
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. This reference has been placed before the Full Bench as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 1-4-2002 and has come up before us. A learned Single Judge of this Court has referred this matter as per order dated 23-6-1999 to the larger Bench formulating the following questions.-1. What is the meaning of expression date of grant for the purpose of computation of the period of prohibition against alienation under Rule 43(6-A) of the 1958 Rules as amended after January 20, 1958 or in Rules of 1956 (Rule 43(6-A) or Rule 43-A(3a) of the Rules) as operative from January 18, 1956 or as used in Rule 43(8) of the Rules operative from 4-8-1956? 2. Whether correct proposition of law has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmamma v. State of Karnataka and Ors., : AIR1983Kant237 vide observations in paragraphs 75 and 76 or that it has been correctly laid down in the cases of Karappa Bovi v. Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and Or...
South India Corporation Limited Vs. the Karnataka Power Corporation Li ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3038; 2003(2)KarLJ321
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. Writ Appeal No. 2244 of 2002 is filed by South India Corporation Limited and Writ Appeal No. 1999 of 2002 is filed by Nair Coal Services Limited, against the common order dated 15-2-2002 (Nair Coal Services Limited, Nagpur and Anr. v Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore and Ors., 2002(3) Kar. L.J. 101 : ILR 2002 Kar. 2575) passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants by not interfering with the tender notification dated 8-6-2001.2. The necessary brief facts are, the 1st respondent-Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (for short 'KPCL'), a Karnataka State Government Undertaking, issued a tender notification dated 8-6-2001 inviting tenders for the appointment of transport agencies for movement of coal from Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) and Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) to Raichur Thermal Power Station (RTPS). The said notification invited tenders from reputed coal tr...
The Management of Siruguppa Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. C.S. Mohan a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2701
ORDERBannurmath, J. 1. The petitioner/Management of M/s. Siruguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., Gauribidanur, has assailed the correctness of the order dated 17.6.1997 (Annexure T) passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, in I.D.No. 90/94 on the preliminary issue holding that the domestic enquiry held is not fair and proper. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The 1st Respondent who was the workman of the petitioner was by the order dated 1-3-1993, transferred to the Administrative Office, which, it is alleged, has been refused by him. Thereafter, inspite of the transfer (copy of the transfer order has been displayed on the Notice Board) and even the workman has been relieved on 21-6-1993, he did not report for duty at the Administrative Office. This act of refusal to accept and act on the transfer order and in not reporting to duty at the Administrative Office is taken serious note and as such a show cause notice dated 2-7-1993 was issued to the workman. Similarly, ...
Suresh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3273
1. The appellant-husband before us has preferred this appeal which is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-11-1999 of the learned X Addl. Sessions Judge at Bangalore. Originally, the appellant Suresh and his mother Sakamma were charged with having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. The prosecution alleged that at about 4 a.m. on 21-1-1995 accused No. 1 Suresh took his wife Veenadevi out of the house on the pretext that she should do pooja at the Shanidevara temple. Thereafter he brought her to his agricultural land and while she was doing the pooja he suddenly assaulted her and he is alleged to have also strangulated her. Thereafter, the prosecution alleges that accused No. 1 Suresh and his mother Sakamma dug a trench on the side of the agricultural land, put the body into it and covered it up with mud. Several days after i.e. on 2-2-1995 her father Srikanta who is P.W.I lodged a complaint with the police stating that his daughter is missing....
K. Srinivas Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3865
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397, Cr.P.C, against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore in C.C. No. 10994/95 wherein the petitioner accused was convicted of committing the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo S.I., for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default directed to undergo S.I., for a period of six months. In appeal, the XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal 52/98 confirmed the conviction and sentence and consequently dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present revision petition is filed. 2. According to the prosecution version, on 16-11-1994 the petitioner accused was the driver of BTS Bus bearing No. Ka-01-F-403 plying from Vijayanagar to Majestic. Around 5.30 pm. the bus driven by the petitioner-accused was proceeding on the platform Road towards Majestic. The deceased who was riding the TVS...
B. Suresh Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1830; 2002(5)KarLJ202
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 2463 of 1998 was an employee of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short, 'KPSC'), and he has filed this petition challenging the order dated 23-10-1991 passed by KPSC imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner in W.P. No. 10774 of 1998 is an employee of KPSC and she has filed her petition seeking promotion from the date her junior was promoted. 2. Petitioner in W.P. No. 2463 of 1998 had earlier approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 5594 of 1997 seeking for the very same relief. The Tribunal by order dated 11-12-1997 disposed off the said application at the stage of preliminary hearing, on the following ground: 'The question of his seeking reliefs before this Tribunal does not arise in view of the fact that the KPSC as having not been notified as one of the authorities under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. It is open for the applicant to agitate his rights bef...
J.D. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3388; 2002(5)KarLJ580; (2002)IIILLJ346Kant
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. An officer of State Bank of Mysore questions the selection and appointment of 4th respondent to the post of Senior Management Grade Scale IV in the services of the Bank, inter alia on the ground that he is more meritorious than the 4th respondent and therefore, the Selection Committee was not justified in preferring the 4th respondent than to him.2. Briefly stated the facts are.--Petitioner and the 4th respondent were selected as Middle Management Grade Scale II Officers in the services of respondent-Bank pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Central Recruitment Board. After such selection, petitioner was appointed and posted to work as Deputy Law Officer of the Bank at Hubli Zonal Office with its headquarters at Hubli. The 4th respondent was appointed as Deputy Law Officer and posted to work at the zonal office at Mysore. Both of them have reported for duty at the place of their postings on 31-12-1984. Petitioner asserts that he was treated as senior among t...
R.P. Balakrishna Vs. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas191(Kar); 2002CriLJ4444
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners in C. C. No. 27224 of 1999. The first respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner and others for committing an offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is alleged that the impugned dishonoured cheques are issued by the petitioner on behalf of the company. In the cause title of the complaint, the petitioner has been described as the director of the second respondent-company. The trial court took cognizance and issued process. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.2. The issuance of the dishonoured of cheques is not in dispute in this proceedings. However it is contended by the petitioner that he is not the director of the second respondent-company and he was only an employee of the company. Further it is con...
State Vs. Smt. D. Jayamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3872
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the State under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the respondents, a charge-sheet was filed in Spl. C.C. No. 41/2001 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and under Section 506, IPC etc.2. Before the Special Court, the respondents-accused contended that the investigation has not been conducted as required under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Rule 7 of the Rules reads thus :-Rule 7 : Investigating Officer :1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »