Karnataka Court February 2003 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.
Siddalingeshwar and ors. Vs. Virupaxgouda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant407; ILR2003KAR2559; 2004(2)KarLJ28
Raveendran, J. 1. The appellants were the plaintiffs and respondents were defendants in O.S.No. 176/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gadag. For convenience we will refer to the parties by their ranks in the suit or by their names.2. Virupaxgouda and Veerangouda (Defendants 1 and 2 in this suit) are brothers and are the sons of late Basangouda Patil and his wife Basawa. Plaintiffs- 1 to 4 are the children, and plaintiff No. 5 is the wife of Virupaxgouda, the first defendant. The third and fourth Defendants are respectively the son and wife of Veerangouda, the second defendant.3. Basangouda, filed a suit against his two sons (Virupaxgouda and Veerangouda) and his wife (Basawa) in O.S.No. 60/1994 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Gadag for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the joint family properties. He alleged that there was no partition till then. During the pendency of the suit, Basangouda died. Basangouda's second son Veerangou...
K. Krishna and ors. Vs. the University of Mysore, Rep. by Its Registra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2578
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. The fate of qualified temporary lecturers who worked as such in the Mysore University presently unemployed hangs in balance in these Writ Appeals.2. The learned Single Judge in a hard hitting judgment held that the lecturers were not entitled to regularisation and more or less directed that their services be terminated as their appointments were not in accordance with law.3. We wish to start with the operative portion of the learned Single Judge's order which is under appeal before we deal with the facts of the case. It reads as follows:-'Conclusion & directionsKeeping in view the statutory provisions as noticed above and the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, since the petitioner had been given an ad hoc appointment on contract basis in obvious flagrant and blatant violation of the statutory provisions contained under Section 51A of the Act and the statutes framed thereunder by the Vice Chancellor against unsanctioned posts and that too, without fo...
B. Balachandra Rai Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Limited, by Its Cha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2911
ORDERGopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner, who is the Personnel Officer of Indian Telephone Industries (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned Memorandum at Annexure-P dated 19-3-1996 issued by the 2nd respondent Chairman and Managing Director of the company imposing penalty by reducing him to lower post of Grade-II with condition that he should be restored to Grade III after two years and treating the period of suspension as not spent on duty. A direction is also sought by him to grant him all the consequential benefits and to restore the order of Memorandum produced at Annexure-Q by which he was exonerated from the charges leveled against him. 2. The facts of the case in brief are stated as under :-(i) The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed C.C. No. 2503/ 92 under of Sections 417, 419, 420 r/w 511 and 120-B I.P.C. against the petitioner and one M.V.V. Reddy, Chairman of All India Economic Offences Awareness Bureau (...
Madhav Bandopant Kulkarni and anr. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ13
1. The appellants before us have assailed the order of remand dated 15-6-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of Writ Petition Nos. 18961 and 24667 of 1998. The original petitioners, who are the appellants before us, are admittedly the landowners of a small piece of land which measures hardly 15 guntas. Though it is technically described as being located in Kalkamba Village, effectively the area is now included within Belgaum City and the principal point of dispute centers around the question as to whether occupancy rights could have at all been granted in respect of this small piece of land which has been more particularly described as a backyard, the reason being that it is the case of the landowners that the land has been converted to non-agricultural use as early as 31-10-1963. The original applicant, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives - respondents 2 to 12, had applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of this piece of land, t...
B. Balachandra Rai Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Limited and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ79
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner, who is the Personnel Officer of Indian Telephone Industries (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned memorandum at Annexure-P, dated 19-3-1996 issued by the 2nd respondent-Chairman and Managing Director of the Company imposing penalty by reducing him to lower post of Grade II with condition that he should be restored to Grade III after two years and treating the period of suspension as not spent on duty, A direction is also sought by him to grant him all the consequential benefits and to restore the order of memorandum produced at Annexure-Q by which he was exonerated from the charges levelled against him.2. The facts of the case in brief are stated as under.-(i) The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed C.C. No. 2503 of 1992 under Sections 417, 419 and 420 read with Sections 511 and 120B of the IPC against the petitioner and one M.V.V.Reddy, Chairman of All India Economic Off...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›