Karnataka Court August 2003 Judgments
A. Achutha and ors. Vs. Sri Rama Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3826; (2004)IILLJ755Kant
ORDERNayak, J .1. These Writ Petitions are placed before the Division Bench, on reference, consequent upon a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent Co-operative Society before the learned Single Judge that writ would not lie against the respondent sugar factory which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. This contention is not tenable because, this very Bench in W.P.No. 13524 of 1999 dated 25.2.2003 held that Bhadra Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita which is also a Cooperative Society is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 as well as an 'authority' for the purpose of issuing writs and/or orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasons stated by us in the said Judgment, equally apply to the facts of this case also to hold that the Respondent - Sri Rama Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and an 'authority' for the purpose of issuing writs and/or orders under Artic...
Tag this Judgment!Munivenkatappa Vs. the Corporation of City of Bangalore, Rep. by Its C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3975; 2004(2)KarLJ98
Nayak, J The 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.10.1999 passed in W.P.N. 336/95 has preferred this Writ Appeal. The 4th respondent herein namely, Sri D. Lingappa filed W.P.No. 336 of 1995 praying for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing Annexure-K, the Final Gradation List of J.Es as on 1.1.1981, prepared by the 1st respondent and also Annexure-Q, the Final Gradation List of J.Es as on 1.12.95 published by the 1st respondent. (amended as per Court Order dated 16.8.99 on I.A.No. II) (b) To issue a writ of mandamus to prepare a fresh gradation list of J.Es by placing respondents 2 to 4 below the last member of service in the Cadre of J.E.s as on 9.12.77. (c) To review the promotion made to the cadre of A.EEs in the light of the seniority to be assigned in the fresh gradation list of J.Es., so prepared. (d) To consider the case for promotion of the petitioner as on 7.12.89, the date on which, t...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Secretary, Railway Board and ors. Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2003ACJ1871; AIR2004Kant1; ILR2003KAR4155
ORDER ON REFERENCE 3. THE QUESTION REFERRED IS:'Are tribunals established under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Karnataka Private Education (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 now the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, and the Railways claims Tribunals Act, Courts subordinate to the High Court for purpose of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?Held(D) Railways Claims Tribunal is not an ordinary course of Civil Judicature but a tribunal ; Railways Claim tribunal is not a Court subordinate to High Court.(E) The Tribunals (MACT) established under the MV Act rules are not empowered to exercise all the powers of established Civil Courts excepting under certain provisions of the CPC -- MACT, is not a Court subordinate to High Court so as to maintain a Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC.(F) EAT is not a Court subordinate to High Court for exercising power of revision under Section 115 CPC -- The view taken in 'EXCELLENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. SMT. J. SAHIBA BEGUM- (WA 1101 to 1103/97 dated...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nanjappa and anr. Vs. V. Sekar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1186; 2004(2)KarLJ329
H.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation for the death of their son namely, Balaji in a motor accident that occurred on 15-9-1996. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 78,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of their claim till the date of payment.2. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. TN-09 E 4575 has become final and is not disputed in this appeal.3. The appellants/claimants had sought for conversion of their claim petition filed under Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by filing I.A. No. 1 and the same had been allowed by this Court on 3-7-2003 relying on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Guruanna Vadi and Anr. v. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Anr., 2001(5) Kar. L.J. 322 (FB): ILR 2001 Kar. 2879 (FB) Accordingly, the only question that arises for consideration in t...
Tag this Judgment!Neelakanth and anr. Vs. Siddalingayya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant258
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 91 /91 on the file of District Judge, Bijapur arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 109/90 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Bijapur. The appellants are defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff is the son of second defendant. The first defendant is the coparcener of the second defendant. The defendants 3 and 4 are purchasers of the suit lands from the first defendant under registered sale deed Ex. P. 17 and P. 18. The plaintiff contends that the property under Ex. D. 1 was sold by second defendant in favour of first defendant without his knowledge. The plaintiff had reposed full trust in second defendant. The second defendant took the plaintiff to Tahsildar's Office took his signature under the pretext as a witness to the document without informing the contents. The first defendant was t...
Tag this Judgment!Munivenkatappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ423
K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. In this intra-Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the writ petitioner challenges the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 17822 of 2000, dated 13-12-2000.2. The respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Sri Basavarajaiah, learned Government Pleader. Respondent 3 is represented by Sri J.G. Chandra Mohan.3. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant and the respondents herein are referred to as 'the petitioner', 'the Appellate Authority', 'the Assistant Commissioner' and 'the grantee's daughter-in-law', respectively.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under.-The land in question is bearing Sy. No. 1 measuring 3 acres of Vishwanathapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land'). The disputed land was granted in favour of'one Raman Bovi (in short 'the grantee') by the grant bearing No. LND 147/59-60, dated 30-12-1960 free of cost on a condition of non-aliena...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Srinivas Vs. K. Halappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ347
ORDER1. In W.P. No. 6759 of 2002, the petitioner-G.P. Srinivas who is the elected member of the Zilla Panchayat, Davangere prays for quashing of the orders passed by the learned District Judge, Davangere in M.A. No. 44 of 2001 affirming the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Davangere in Election Misc. No. 1 of 2000.W.P. No. 37758 of 2000 is also by Nataraj praying to quash the order (Annexure-G) dated 17-11-2000 in No. 6/2000-01 passed by respondent 1. W.P. No. 7221 of 2002 is by a contestant in the Zilla Panchayat election to the Kundur Constituency. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, Davangere in M.A. No. 44 of 2000 setting aside the declaration made by the Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere in Election Misc. No. 1 of 2000 declaring the petitioner as duly elected candidate from Kundur Constituency to the Zilla Panchayat, Davangere.W.P. No. 30354 of 2000 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order or direction quashing the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jogindar Singh Sabarwal Vs. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corpor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant141; ILR2003KAR4284
Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Though the matter is listed for orders on I.A.I/03 for early hearing, with the consent of the Counsel on both sides the matter is heard finally and is disposed off by the following order:-2. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining of certain high handed action on the part of respondent 1 to 4, the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. ('the Corporation' for short) and its officials. It is alleged that the action on the part of the petitioner is lacking in bona fide; that it is virtually a malafide action particularly with a view to favour the fifth respondent and to the detriment of the petitioner, the respondents having exercised power vested in them akin to the exercise of the power by the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has approached this Court seeking for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The factual malpractice out of which the present controversy arises is as under...
Tag this Judgment!Pepsicola India Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: [2004]137STC493(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner in these petitions is challenging the orders passed by the respondent dated June 28, 2003 and the subsequent notices of demand pertaining to assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01 (annexures G, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q and R).2. Petitioner/dealer is covered by the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected on December 3, 2002. Documents were seized by the respondent and mahazar was drawn. Thereafter notices under section 28(6) of the Act were issued to the petitioner for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01. Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the provisional orders of assessment are not to be proceeded against the petitioner. Annexures A to E are notices issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed a detailed reply in terms of annexure F dated March 13, 2003. The first respondent thereafter confirmed the notices by way of provisional orders of assessment annexures G to H, J to L and followed by annexures...
Tag this Judgment!P.E. Kalaiah Vs. Union of India (Uoi), by Its Secretary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3643
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner was an applicant for Indane L.P.G. Distributorship at Kutta Rural Location in response to a Newspaper advertisement dated 16.7.2000 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the third respondent herein. Petitioner had applied for award of distributorship claiming to be an outstanding sports person as mentioned and described in this advertisement, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A to the petition, inasmuch as the Distributorship was exclusively reserved to the category of outstanding sports persons.2. The advertisement had elicited response from about four persons including the petitioner. It appears that One amongst them did not turn up for the interview and only three candidates remained in the fray. The Dealer Selection Board interviewed the three candidates on 22.1.2001 and listed them in the order of merit. The result of the selection was also announced on the same day. As per this list, the fourth respondent figured as No. 1, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »