Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR3674; 2002(5)KarLJ571
1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ appeals they are heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. The appellants are ex-servicemen. They were appointed as security staff in the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 3-7-1997 in the batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 8749 of 1994 and connected writ petitions.3. As stated earlier the appellants are ex-servicemen and were recruited as security staff in the Corporation. The appellants were given certain benefits as per Annexure-C. As per Annexure-C the appellants being ex-servants were given the benefit of last drawn salary in the military service which is equal to the stage in the timescale of the post to which he is appointed. This order at Annexure-C was applicable to officers of the rank of Junior Commissioned Officers or below discharged from military service before s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR4992; 2002(6)KarLJ205
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 26-3-2002 (Annexure-A), passed by the 1st respondent-Assistant Commissioner is before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order dated 26-3-2002 (Annexure-A) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as a member of the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.B. Mahesh, the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent.3. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the 1st respondent-Assistant Commissioner is also present in person along with the original records. The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the seat of an elected member will become vacant if he is absent for more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Gram Panchayat without the leave of the Gram Panchayat. In the present case, admittedly, three ordinary meetings were held on 9-10-2001, 20-11-2001 and 24-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant1; ILR2002KAR4363; 2002(5)KarLJ357
K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 29-10-1998 passed in W.P. No. 4235 of 1994 on the file of this Court. 2. The brief facts of this case leading to the filing of this writ appeal may be stated as under.-The respondent herein as a member of the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund, filed an application for payment of retirement benefits under the Scheme. The appellants considered the application at Annexure-A in the meeting held on 6-3-1993 and passed the following Resolution No. 41 of 1992-93 at Annexure-B. 'Resolution No. 41 of 1992-93 It is resolved to communicate the applicant that he is not eligible to the retirement benefits as he intends to continue practice and it is not the case of cessation of practice, hence, it is rejected'. 3. Aggrieved by the resolution at Annexure-B the respondent-Advocate preferred an appeal under Section 21 of the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appeal was d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003ACJ1259
V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. These revision petitions are filed by petitioner company as it is aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 19.3.2001 passed in M.V.C. Nos. 282, 283, 284, 288, 289 and 306 of 1997 in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,000, Rs. 3,000, Rs. 2,000, Rs. 3,000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively. The petitioner has also filed M.F.A. Nos. 3039-3043 of 2001 aggrieved of the judgment and awards passed in M.V.C. Nos. 281, 285, 286, 287 and 290 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, Rs. 15,000, Rs. 55,000, Rs. 17,364 and Rs. 65,387 respectively in favour of the claimants therein. Thereby the total compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T., Koppal, against the petitioner company is Rs. 3,16,751. It is contended by Mr. S.P. Shankar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company that as per the policy issued to the insured in respect of the lorry bearing registration No. KA 26-1632 the liability of the company is limited to 6+1 persons who were travelling ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR4096; 2002(5)KarLJ563
1. These writ appeals arise out of the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in A.C. Siddappa v. State of Karnataka, : ILR1998KAR880 . The dispute in this case relates to the grant of 10 acres of land in Sy. No. 27 of Kowdenahalli Village in favour of the appellant for running a junior college. The respondents in this proceedings other than the State and State Officials had filed the writ petitions espousing the public grievance that thf grant made in favour of the appellant is illegal and in flagrant violation of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules. The Sy. No. 27 of Kowdenahalli Village is shown as tank bed area in the revenue records which is not a disputed fact.2. The appellant made a representation to the Revenue Minister for grant of land in the aforesaid Sy. No. 27. Upon such representation, instructions were issued by the Revenue Secretary to the Deputy Commissioner indicating the approval of the Government for the grant of the land under Rule 10(3) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2004]134STC138(Kar)
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. These revisions are filed against the impugned order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 132 of 1998, 133 of 1998, 134 of 1998 and 135 of 1998. The petitioner is a manufacturer of T.V. antenna. The assessing officer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1987-88 levied the tax at three per cent based on the Government Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87(X) dated March 28, 1987, on the total turnover, by his order dated February 13, 1990. However, by an order dated September 1, 1994 under Section 12-A of the KST Act, revised the assessments and levied tax at six per cent based on the Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87(V) dated March 28, 1987. The assessing officer revised the assessment orders for the years 1987-88 to 1991-92 holding that the tax at the rate of six per cent as per the Notification dated FD 34 CSL 87(V) dated March 28, 1987 is applicable and that the T.V. antenna do not constitute an item of T.V. component and it i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR4069; 2003(1)KarLJ483
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. This is an application filed on 15-6-2002 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for correction of the word ''dismissed' appearing in the 5th line of the order dated 21-11-1990 as 'decreed'.2. No doubt, this Court becomes factious officio after passing order, judgment or decree, but it can correct a clerical or arithmetical error and an error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission either on its own motion or on the application made by any party. So also, as far as the delay is concerned, this Court is lenient in condoning the delay if sufficient and reasonable cause is shown. It is also settled that no party should suffer due to the mistake of the Court, and the same can be corrected at any point of time, if the mistake or arithmetic error is on the part of the Court.3. A bare reading of the application reveals that same can be dismissed. The learned Senior Counsels Sri Chidambaram and Sr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR4592; 2002(6)KarLJ109
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. In these petitions, the premises in question is a non-residential premises and the plinth area of the said premises is more than 14 sq. mts. If that is so, in view of the Karnataka Rent Act of 1999, all proceedings relating to commercial premises, the plinth area of which is more than 14 sq. mts. stands abated. The Supreme Court in case of Mahendra Saree Emporium v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, : [2002]3SCR694 , has held as follows:'It is not disputed that the area of the suit premises used for non-residential purposes exceeds fourteen square metres. Hence, looking to the provisions of clause (g) of Sub-section. (3) of Section 2 of the 1999 Act, the provisions of the 1999 Act do not apply to the suit premises and, therefore, by virtue of clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the 1999 Act these proceedings shall stand abated'.2. The Supreme Court in another case in Sultaan Mohiyuddin and Ors. v. Basheer Ahmed Shariffand Ors., : [2002]3SCR795 , has held as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR3868
ORDERGopala Gowda, J. 1. In this revision petition the legality and validity of the order passed by the appellate Court setting aside the order dated 3-2-1998 in OS. No. 167/97 and restoring the suit which was dismissed for non-prosecution is questioned. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent is not entitled to the relief as he has not complied with the condition imposed by the Trial Court in the interim order dated 14-7-1997 granting temporary injunction. He further states that since the said order was not complied with, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and even the Miscellaneous N0.6/98 was also dismissed. M.A.No. 26/99 filed against same was allowed and questioning the legality and validity of the said order the present revision petition is filed. 3. I have perused the orders of the Courts below. The appellate Court exercised its discretion and restored the suit by setting side the order by which it was dismissed for non-prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant400; ILR2005KAR1265
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The judgment debtor has questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the Executing Court issuing delivery warrant for delivery of possession of the property and is seeking to set aside the same. 2. The decree holder filed the execution petition seeking delivery of possession of balance of the property in respect of which eviction had been ordered in H.R.C. No. 2958/83. The eviction order was confirmed by this Court in H.R.R.P. No. 5357/88 granting one year time to vacate the schedule premises. While the Judgment Debtor asserted that he has handed over the entire portion of schedule premises on 23-7-1995, the decree holder alleges that possession of an extent of 10 x 30' is not at all delivered. The Executing Court considered the rival pleas of the parties and issued delivery warrant. 3. Since the judgment debtor categorically asserts that entire property had been delivered, it should not have been aggrieved by the delivery warrant issued by th...
Tag this Judgment!