Karnataka Court September 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.
Khasim Sab Bapu Sab Sirguppi Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ382
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner, who is one of the voters in the electoral college constituted for the purpose of electing Mutawalli to the Board is before this Court challenging the Government order dated 30-4-2003 bearing No. RD 07 WES 2003 (Annexure-A) insofar as the Government nominating the 4th respondent as a member of the 3rd respondent-Board. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under.--The petitioner is one of the voters as per the electoral college of Muthawalli prepared by the Government in Form 6-D (vide Sl. No. 24). As per Government notification bearing No. RD 49 WES 98, dated 26-9-1988, the Government notified and appointed in all 13 persons as members of the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs. Out of the 13 members posts, five persons were nominated by the Government as per Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short, 'the Act'). Out of 13 members of the Board, 7 persons are elected from the respective electoral college and the 13th m...
Khasim Sab Bapu Sab Sirgupi Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secret ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4333
ORDERBhakthavatsala, J. 1. The Petitioner, who is one of the Voters in the Electoral College constituted for the purpose of electing Muthawalli to the Board is before this Court challenging the Government order dated 30.4.2003 bearing No. RD/07/WES/2003 (Annexure-A) in so far as the Government nominating the 4th Respondent as a member of the 3rd Respondent -Board.2. ,The brief facts of the case of the Petitioner may be stated as under:-The Petitioner is one of the Voters as per the electoral college of Muthawalli prepared by the Government in Form No. 6D. (vide SL. No. 24). As per Government notification bearing No. RD 49 WES 98 dated 26.9.1988, the Government notified and appointed in all 13 persons as members of the Karnataka State Board of Wakf. Out of the 13 members posts, five persons were nominated by the Government as per Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short, the Act). Out of 13 members of the Board, 7 persons are elected from the respective electoral college and the 13th ...
H.V. Narayana Rao Vs. A.R. Ravi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ271
Nayak, J.1. A small man's problems would quite often throw greater challenges to the Judge and legal system if they were to do justice to him. The challenge brought before the court in this case relates to the question whether technicalities should be allowed to overtake the commands of justice and the dictates of good conscience of the Judge? The basic jurisprudential question throughout the ages is how can we improve the quality of justice for individual parties; how can we reduce injustice? Over the centuries, it can be seen, the main answer has been to build a system of rules and principles, precepts and concepts to guide decisions in individual cases. That is a good answer, as good for the future as for the past', if we can borrow the phrase from Kenneth, Culp Davis. Therefore, the continued development of rules and principles, innovations of precepts and concepts are both desirable and inevitable. We thought hitherto that technicality is the unfailing resource of an Indian litiga...
Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. Radha Arun and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR808; 2003(6)KarLJ120
ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) CPC -- OBJECT OF -- (a) To bring on record all persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter -- (b) To determine the dispute in their presence, without any protraction, inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceeding. When the Court is of the view that by adding a party, if would be in a better position to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in suit -- The Court may at any stage order for addition of any person.Setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and setting aside the order passed by the Family Court on IA IV, the Court Held:But what if the Rules do not require the impleading of the alleged adulterer as co-respondent, though named in the petition?. In the absence of any Rule, we have to fall back upon Rules 3, 5 and 10(2) of Order 1 CPC. Rule 3 provides that all persons against whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act/s or transaction/s is alleged ...
Ms. Prafeena Phalgunan Vs. the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Scien ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ339
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. The petitioner who had secured 58.16% of marks in the C.B.S.E. examination (All India Senior School Certificate Examination, 2002) got admitted to the First Year B.D.S. Course in the Bangalore Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, respondent 2 herein, for the academic year 2002-03. When the college sent the list of students admitted by it for approval of admission to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, the University by its letter dated 3-7-2003 addressed to the Principal of the College, has refused to approve the admission of the petitioner. He ordered for discharging the candidate on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for admission inasmuch as she had failed in theory paper of Physics. This communication is questioned in this writ petition.2. In the scheme of C.B.S.E. examination, though a student may opt to study more subjects than five, he should 'pass' in any of the 5 subjects of his study, to be eligible to be declared ...
M.R. Joseph Vs. John Menezes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2291; 2003(6)KarLJ163; (2004)ILLJ650Kant
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. These 3 appeals are by the Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Funds, Mangalore Division being aggrieved of the common judgment passed in C.C. Nos. 22445 to 22447 of 1989 by the learned IV Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada dated 31-7-1996 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 14(1-A) and 14(1-B) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with Paragraph 76(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The accused Mr. John Menezes, being the proprietor of M/s. Prakash Tile Works, registered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 failed to pay Provident Fund contributions for the months of December 1988 and January 1989, failed to pay family pension for the month of December 1988 and so also failed to pay Insurance Fund contributions for the mon...
M.R. Joseph, Enforcement Officer, Epf Vs. John Menezes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4525
Veerabhadraiah, J. 1. These 3 appeals are by the Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Funds, Mangalore Division being aggrieved of the common judgment passed in C.C. Nos. 22445/89, 22446/89 and 22447/89 by the learned IV Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Mangalore, DK dated 31.7.1996 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 14(1A), 14(1B) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 r/w Paragraph 76(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds Schemes 1952.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The accused Mr. John Menezes, being the proprietor of M/s. Prakash Tile Works, registered uder the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 failed to pay Provident Funds contribution for the months of December 1988 to January 1989, failed to pay family pension for the month of December 1988 and so also failed to pay Insurance Fund contribution for the months of December 1988 to January 1989. On account of...
Executive Engineer and ors. Vs. Bharath Engineering Service Technocrat ... Overruled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1817
Mohan Shantana Goudar, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common Order passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge at Mysore in A.C.s No. 3/91, 4/91 and 62/1991 whereby objections filed by the appellants to the Awards made by the Arbitrator have been rejected as time barred and the Awards made a rule of the Court. In the factual backdrop that we propose to set out hereunder, the appellant shall be referred to as the 'Department' and the respondents as 'Claimant' for the sake of convenience.2. The Department invited tenders for different items of work in connection with construction of Kabini Right Bank Canal. The claimant emerged successful in regard to three items of work which were allotted to him for execution in terms of three separate agreements signed by the parties. These works were to be completed within the time stipulated in the respective Agreement, failing which the Department could rescind the contract and have the remainder of the work orworks executed through another agency, at th...
Basavarajegowda Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta Trust's Dayananda Sagar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ130
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This civil revision petition was listed for hearing along with C.R.P. No. 1681 of 2003. The reason for this was because the Education Appellate Tribunal has passed an order to the effect that the appeal filed to that forum is not maintainable in view of the existing position in law, the sequitur being that the petitioner would have to agitate his grievance under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 before the revisional authority namely, the Secretary, Education of the State Government. It is also relevant for me to mention the brief facts insofar as the petitioner who was an employee of the institution is alleged to have submitted a letter of resignation dated 22-12-2000 which was accepted by the management on the same day and consequently, effect has been given to that resignation. The case of the petitioner-employee is that even though the letter in question bears his handwriting and signature that it was extorted from him under very unfair circu...
K. Narayana Rao Vs. the Secretary, Department of Transport and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC119; ILR2003KAR4261
ORDERGururajan, J. 1. Petitioner in this petition is seeking for a Writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-F dated 25-9-2002 issued by Rule - 3 -- the Commissioner for transport in Karnataka. Petitioner is the owner of New Janatha Motor Driving School, Bangalore. He has rich experience in Motor Driving School business. He says that licence is required to run a driving school. He has referred to various provisions in this regard. According to him, an Instructor is required to be in the establishment, as his presence is always needed for completing the training course. Petitioner approached for licence to the jurisdictional Licencing Authority with regard to appointment of qualified Instructor either part time or full time. The Licencing Authority of Bangalore Central and the Licencing Authority of Jayanagar, gave endorsements dated 19-10-2002 and 4-11-2002 stating that no such appointments could be made in terms of the Rule. Aggrieved by the said endorsements, petitioner approached the thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »