Karnataka Court August 2003 Judgments
Doddappa S. Kalaginamani Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3846
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. By consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is heard on merits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Yadgir Town Planning Authority by order dated 21.11.2000. Pursuant to this order, he assumed the Office of the Chairman on 23.11.2000. The State Government has now issued an order dated 22.7.2003 appointing the 3rd respondent as Chairman in place of the petitioner. This order is under challenge by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 3. At the time of preliminary hearing, I being satisfied that there cannot be any appointment without removing the petitioner from the Office of the Chairman, I ordered emergent notice regarding Rule and granted an interim order of Stay. Subsequently, the State Government has filed an application for vacating the stay. After hearing, I passed the order dismissing the application filed by the State Government for vacating the interim order, as the State Government had not produced any order removing the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. the Labour Officer and Inspector and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4273; 2004(3)KarLJ175
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of textiles and textile related products and has employed around 4800 workmen. As per the Karnataka National and Festival Holidays Act (hereinafter referred to for short the 'Act') the petitioner is required to declare 10 paid holidays which includes 26th January-Republic Day, 15th August-Independence day, 2nd October-Gandhi Jayanthi, 1st May-May Day, 1st November-Kannada Rajyotsava Day. Apart from the aforesaid holidays the petitioner grants 10 days of casual leave, 14 days sick leave and 23 days of privilege leave to its employees.2. On 9.12.2002 the second respondent Union was invited for a meeting to discuss, finalise and communicate National and Festival Holidays for the year 2003. The second respondent did not attend the meeting. Therefore, the petitioner declared the holidays for the year 2003 by its letter on 10,12.2003 a copy of which is produced along with this Writ Petition at Annexure-B and a copy of the same ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary to Home Department and ors. Vs. K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4400
ORDERRaveendran, J. 1. All these petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 21-4-2003 of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 13785-790, 14319, 14413, 14414, 14471, 14562-564, and 14851/ 2002. They are therefore heard together and disposed of by this common order.WP Nos. 26748. 26906-918/2003:The respondents 1 to 14 herein were respectively the applicants in Application Nos. 13785 to 13790, 14319, 14413, 14414, 14471, 14562-564 and 14851 of 2002 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Petitioners 1 to 3 were respondents in Application Nos. 13785 to 790/2002; petitioners 4, 5 & 2 were respondents in Application No. 14319/2002; petitioners 6, 1, 7 & 2 were respondents in Application No. 14413, 14414 and 14851/2002; and petitioners 1 & 2 were respondents in Application Nos. 14562-14564 and 14471/2002. The petitioners are State of Karnataka, Police Sub-Inspectors Recruitment Committee, DG & IG of Police and Director of Sainik Welfare and Resettlem...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Karnataka Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Kar)737; [2004]266ITR635(KAR); [2004]266ITR635(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this appeal, filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dt. 18th Dec., 2002, made in ITA No. 1008/Bang/2002 by the Tribunal, Bangalore, reversing the order dt. 12th April, 2002, passed by the CIT(A), Hubli. The only question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the respondent-co-operative bank is entitled for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest and dividend income earned by it out of the investment made by it in other banking institutions. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a co-operative bank.2. In this case, the assessment is of the year 1998-99. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record has taken the view that the respondent-bank is entitled for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest and dividend earned by it out of the i...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Rajan and ors. Vs. Konnali Khalid Haji and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC273; 2004ACJ484; ILR2004KAR3731
ORDER 6 RULE 1 - PLEADINGS - IN DEFENCE PLEA OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - HELD - The plea of contributory negligence should be taken in the written statement before Tribunal. It is well settled that the burden of establishing the defence of contributory negligence is on the defendant who admits that on account of the conduct of the plaintiff, his negligence had gone into the background and it was the conduct of the plaintiff that resulted in the accident; it is not for the claimant to disprove it. In this case, there is neither pleading nor any proof of contributory negligence. Further, contributory negligence on the part of the deceased or the driver of the motor cycle cannot be inferred on the basis of evidence on record. ... The driver of the lorry was not examined by the owner or insurer of the vehicle. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against them. Therefore, the plea of contributory negligence urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent 1 and 2 for first time in t...
Tag this Judgment!Yashodamma G. and anr. Vs. State of KarnatakA. Rep. by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3414
ORDER AND THE RESOLUTIONS, THECOURT, Held: Under proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act, the persons whoare nominated under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act as councillors ofthe Municipal Council have no right to vote in the meeting of theMunicipal Council. But, they are entitled to participate in theproceeding of the meeting. Section 42(9) of the Act provides thatthe President of the Municipal Council shall be deemed to havevacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidencein him is passed by a majority of not less than 2/3 rds of thetotal number of councillors at a Special General Meeting.Court has placed its reliance on the unreported Judgment ofthis Court, in W.P.No. 12320/1997 disposed of on 10.12.1997 inthe matter of Smt. Chandubi vs Deputy Commissioner,Chitradurga and others. From the reading of this Judgment it is clear that theCouncillors who are present at the Special Meeting is to be takenfor the purpose of quantifying 2/3rds of the total number ofcouncillors and not t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Yashodamma G. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ346
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in these two writ petitions, these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. The facts in these two cases are as follows.--The petitioner in W.P. No. 4728 of 2003 is the elected President of the third respondent-Kadur Municipal Council. Seventeen councillors of the Kadur Municipal Council submitted a representation to the President on 9-1-2003 to call for the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence moved against the petitioner. On the basis of this representation, the Chief Officer called a special general meeting on 30-1-2003 by notice dated 21-1-2003. Accordingly, the special meeting was held on 30-1-2003. 28 councillors attended the said meeting. Out of 28, 17 councillors voted in favour of the motion whereas, 7 councillors voted against the motion. On the basis of the said resolution the official memorandum dated 5-2-2003 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District, Chickmagalur...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Richards Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secretary, Depar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3582; 2004(1)KarLJ98
ORDERRaveendran, J. 1. Petitioner joined the Air Force on 13-4-1971. He was promoted as a sergeant on 1-8-1984. He was discharged from the Air Force on 30-4-1986 on completing fifteen years of service. At the time of discharge from the Air Force, his pay scale was Rs. 1460-1710. The petitioner claims that the term of his engagement in the Indian Air Force was 15 years of regular service and 6 years of reserve service, and that during the period of reserve period of six years (that is between 1-5-1986 to 30-4-1992), he could have been called upon to serve in the Regular Air Force Reserve.2. After his release from Air Force, the petitioner applied to the Karnataka Public Service Commission against a notification for recruitment to the posts of Commercial Tax Inspectors. He was duly selected and was appointed by the second respondent as per order dated 3-6-1988, in the payscale of Rs. 1400-1750. According to petitioner, the post of CTI in Commercial Tax Department which is a Group 'C' pos...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Devamma Vs. Registrar of Births and Deaths
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant221; ILR2003KAR4787
ORDERShylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 10th January 2002 in C.Mis. 339/01 passed by the JMFC (II Court), Mysore, having failed in her attempt to get a death certificate in respect of her husband which is to be issued by the authorities under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act pursuant to registration of the date of death of a person. The requirement of registration of the date of death itself having not been fulfilled, as the request to this effect before the Magistrate for an order in this regard was declined on the ground that the petitioner's husband having died on 9.6.1962, much prior to The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 having come into force and under which the Magistrate functions, the petition was ordered as not maintainable. It is under such circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court.2. According to the petitioner, she is the wife of one Sanjeevaiah and they were residents of Myso...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Rao and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4678
Nayak, J.1. What arises for decision in these Writ Appeals and Writ Petition is the validity of the proposal/action of the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') in erecting high tension line over the lands of the appellants for supply of additional power-500 KVA to M/s.Widia (India) Limited (for short 'the Widia'). The above action of the Board was assailed by the writ petitioners on the grounds that the same was contrary to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Supply Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, Section 76M of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Planning Act') and Condition 1(a) of the Work Order dated 27.05.1994. A learned Single Judge of this Court without finding any merit in the above contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners, by his common order dated the 5th day of April 1999, has dismissed the Writ Petitions.2. The events leading to filing of the Writ Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »