Karnataka Court October 2004 Judgments
Manjula Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Department of Co-ope ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR271]; ILR2004KAR4881; 2005(1)KarLJ51
ORDERGururajan, J.1. This petition is filed by a married daughter seeking compassionate employment.Petitioner's father late Hanumanthagouda Patil, was employed by the second respondent bank. He died in harness on 16-11-1998. He left behind his wife, sister and daughter i.e., the petitioner herein. His sister got married and she is living separately from them. Petitioner and her mother were completely dependent on the earning of Hanumantagouda Patil. After his death, petitioner was forced to discontinue her studies when she was prosecuting her III year BA. She made an application to the respondent bank for compassionate employment. The same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a married lady in terms of an endorsement Annexure-C. Mother of the petitioner made another application to the respondent bank to reconsider their decision. Her request was also rejected in terms of Annexure-D. Petitioner in these circumstances, is before me.2. Respondents have entered appearance. Sec...
Tag this Judgment!R. Jagannatha and Anr. Vs. the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3125
ORDERN. Kumar, J.The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the notification dated 19.12.1996 issued by the High Court of Karnataka calling applications for appointment of 10 members of the Bar as District Judges and the notification of the High Court dated 16th June, 1988 appointing respondents-4 to 11 as District Judges. The facts in brief are as under:1. The first petitioner enrolled as an Advocate on 4th June 1983 is practising at Tumkur Bar and he has completed seven years of practice and he is fully eligible for being appointed as District Judge. He claims that he belongs to backward community (Vokkaliga by caste) as prescribed in the relevant Government Order. The second petitioner also is a practising Advocate enrolled himself on 28th November, 1984, practising at Tumkur Bar. He has also completed seven years of practice and is eligible for being appointed to the post of District Judge. He belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi Karnataka). He has produced the caste certif...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: [2005]124CompCas637(Kar); (2005)5CompLJ78(Karn); [2005]57SCL305(Kar)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner - Maha Rashtra Apex Corporation Limited has filed this petition under sections 391, 393 read with section 394A of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') seeking sanction of this court to the scheme of compromise and arrangement (revised) entered into between them and its creditors, shareholders, bond holders, deposit holders.2. The case of the petitioner is as hereunder :The petitioner-company was incorporated on the 26th day of April 1943 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 as a public limited company, under the name and style of Maharashtra Apex Bank Limited. They obtained a certificate of commencement of business on 5th May 1943. Subsequently the name of the petitioner was changed to Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited on 2nd September 1955. Thereafter the name of the company was changed as Maha Rashtra Apex Corporation Limited on 22nd March 1996. The registered office of the petitioner-company is situated at Syndicate House, Upendera Nagar, Manipal...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant50; ILR2005KAR1278; 2005(1)KarLJ118
N. Kumar, J.1. These appeals are placed before me for my opinion, pursuant to an order dated 13-8-2004 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, consequent to divergence of opinion between the two learned Judges who constituted the Division Bench. As the learned Judges did not state the point upon which they differed, it is necessary for me to ascertain the same before I give my opinion, in view of the decisions rendered by a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Shriram Industrial Enterprises Limited v. Union of India and Ors., : AIR1996All135 .2. The facts in brief are as hereunder:The first appellant is the medical college and the second appellant is its Principal. First appellant-institution is established by the people belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The first appellant-college was established in the year 1980 by the trust known as Ananda Social and Educational Trust. First appellant-college was maintained and administered by the Board of Trustees and the Governing Counci...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shantamma Vs. Bangalore Mahanagar Palike and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ63
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by a person, who claims to be legal heir of the owner of the property in respect of which property disputes have arisen for the purpose of entering the names of the present owner of the property in the records of the Corporation, precisely to indicate the name of the owner in the folios of the Corporation records.2. The 1st and 2nd respondents-Corporation Authorities having effected the name of the 3rd respondent in the revenue records as the kathadar in respect of house property bearing old Survey Number 5/1 present katha number 34-A situated at Ramakrishna Mutt Layout, Gavipuram Guttahalli, Kempegowda Nagar, Bangalore 19, in terms of endorsement vide Annexure-L, dated 28-6-2001, petitioner has approached this Court claiming that the Corporation Authorities have acted in an arbitrary and biased manner in giving such an endorsement in favour of the 3rd respondent, is seeking for quashing the endorsement Annexure-L, dated 28-6-...
Tag this Judgment!Nirvanappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ234
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner is a person who claims to be a purchaser of a granted land to an extent of 3 acres in Survey No. 51/4 at Somapura Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalgud Taluk, Hassan District. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased this land in terms of sale deed 8-3-1991 from one Sri Eraiah, father of the respondent 3 in this petition and the original grantee of this extent of land.2. The land in question appears to have been granted to said Sri Eraiah in the year 1964 under the Dharkhast proceedings as a person belonging to Scheduled caste community and free of cost. The record indicates that the condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years from the date of grant had been imposed.3. The son of said Sri Eraiah had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Sakleshpur Sub-Division, Sakleshpur under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands...
Tag this Judgment!D. Sangya Naik Vs. Department of Telecom by Its Head of the Dept. and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1874
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order at Annexure-F, dated 18-9-2001, by which he was reverted to the post of T.O.A(G).2. The petitioner had challenged the very same order before this Court by filing a writ petition in WP. No. 12302/2002, where this Court after entertaining the Writ petition granted an interim order of stay. The said writ petition came to be dismissal for non-prosecution on 22.7.2003. Therefore, contending that the said writ petition and the issues involved therein are not decided by the Court and the said writ petition came to be dismissed only for non-prosecution, the present writ petition is filed challenging the very same order. When the Court called upon the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show how this writ petition is maintainable, the learned Counsel has relied on three judgments of the Supreme Court. The first judgment is of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of DAYARAO and ORS. - v. - ST...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ravikumar Vs. Bangalore University and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant21; [2005(104)FLR174]; ILR2004KAR4733; 2004(6)KarLJ47
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner-Ravikumar is seeking a direction to the first respondent to furnish the appointment order as well as marks list of the second respondent in the following circumstances.2. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste for the purpose of reservation. First respondent-University invited applications to fill up backlog vacancies to various posts including to the post of Lecturer in Sericulture. Petitioner applied for the same. According to the petitioner, he is a merited candidate and that he secured 66.7 per cent marks in M.Sc. in Sericulture, 75.4 per cent in M.Phil. in Sericulture. He is also awarded with Ph.D in Sericulture for his thesis on 'Survey and Control of Giant-African Snail (Achatina Fulica Bowdich), a serious pest on Mulberry'. He has taught as honorary lecturer in Sericulture faculty of the Bangalore University and has also published several articles. He has also participated in national and international gatherings and symposia. According to him,...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shabirabhiyamma Vs. Thimmaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)KarLJ160
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner is a person who claims interest in 2 acres of land in Survey No. 9 of Hondaravalli Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalgud Taluk, Hassan District, a land which had been granted in favour of one Sri Thimmaiah in terms of a grant order dated 9-10-1963 evidenced by Saguvali Chit dated 27-12-1964 and measuring an extent of 3 acres and as a person belonging to the scheduled caste community. It is two acres of such land which the petitioner claims was the subject-matter of an agreement dated 1-8-1987 and under which it is claimed that the petitioner had been put in possession. The claim of the petitioner is that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,500/- as indicated in this agreement had been paid by the petitioner in favour of respondent 1.2. In respect of these developments, proceedings had been taken by the petitioner by filing O.S. No. 10 of 1989 before the Court of Munsiff. Arakalgud, praying for relief of specific performance of the agree...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›