Karnataka Court November 2004 Judgments
M. Ramesh Vs. the Bangalore Development Authority and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR18; 2005(1)KarLJ211
S.R. Nayak, J.1. There is a delay of 217 days in preferring the appeal. Hence the appellant has filed I.A. I of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the LA. The explanation offered in para 4 of the affidavit is self-serving and could hardly constitute a sufficient cause for condoning enormous delay. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal also.2. In the writ petition, the action of the Bangalore Development Authority in forfeiting the amount in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 (for short, the 'Rules') was questioned. The appellant-petitioner while seeking quashing of the order of the Bangalore Development Authority marked as Annexure-J under which the amount was forfeited, also prayed for a declaration that Rule 6(3) of the Rules is procedural and not mandatory.3. The argument with regard ...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash V. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ393
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions are by legal heirs of the person in whose favour 2 acres of land had been granted in Survey No. 7 of Herohalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in terms of a Grant Order dated 7-6-1941 granted under the depressed class darkhast proceedings and free of cost in favour of one Junjappa, son of Galappa. The saguvali chit in respect of this land had been issued on 20-10-1943.2. It is the case of the petitioner in both the petitions that the said land had been sold by Junjappa and his son in terms of two sale deeds dated 20-12-1972, one acre each in favour of one Lakshminarayana and Shivanna. The said Lakshminarayana in turn had sold the land in favour of Chikka Hanumakka. It is such land which had been purchased by respondent 4 in W.P. No. 21473 of 2004 in terms of sale deed dated 20-6-1974 executed by Lakshminarayana. The petitioners had sought for invalidation of these sale transactions of the year 1972 both in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Nijaguni Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2638; 2005(1)KarLJ248
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. Two Government Orders one dated 7-6-2003 bearing No. FD.8.SRP.2003 and the second dated 29-1-2004 bearing No. FD 24 SRP 2003, insofar as adjusting the grant of enhanced Dearness Allowance at the rate of 3% and 4% of Basic Pay for the period from January 2003 to May 2003; and July 2003 to December 2003, respectively, towards Calamity Relief Fund (in short, 'CRF') are questioned in these writ petitions.Reg. Writ Petition Nos. 28702 of 2003, 10279 of 2004, 30484 and 30485 of 2003, 28270 to 28281 of 2003 and 9917 to 9920 of 2004.2. The contentions of the petitioners viz., certain employees of the High Court of Karnataka and Karnataka High Court Employees' Welfare Association (in short, 'KHCEW Association') are as under.-(i) that the service conditions of the employees of the High Court of Karnataka are governed by the Rules framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the Chief Justice is the sole Authority to fix pay and allowance of the employees...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Udayashankar C.S.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1168]; ILR2005KAR275; 2005(1)KarLJ329
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The management of the K.S.R.T.C. being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-4-2004 in W.P. No. 45952 of 1999 has preferred this writ appeal.2. The respondent herein filed the above writ petition complaining that his non-selection to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Class II) is illegal and irregular. So alleging, the respondent sought intervention of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 and prayed for a mandamus to the management of the appellant-Corporation for appointment to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Class II). The writ petition was opposed by the management of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation by contending that the writ petition is misconceived; the respondent did not possess the prescribed minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination, therefore, his non-selection is justified. The learned Single Judge having appreciated the rival contentions has opined that the prescription of 50% m...
Tag this Judgment!H. Rajappa and anr. Vs. Haronahalli Grama Panchayat and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1443; 2005(1)KarLJ373
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The first petitioner was appointed as a Bill Collector in the first respondent-Grama Panchayat on 25-8-2001. He contends that his appointment was also approved by the Zilla Panchayat by an order dated 10-3-2004 as per Annexure-A. Second petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the first respondent-Grama Panchayat long back and he claims that he has put in 21 years of service as a Peon. Both of them belong to Scheduled Caste Community. Their case is that on 13-9-2004, the Secretary of the first respondent-Grama Panchayat instructed the first petitioner to disburse 350 Kgs. of rice to a Contractor who has done contract work for the Panchayat. The said work was executed under 'Kooligagi Kalu Yojane' and therefore the rice has to be disbursed to the Contractor, and as per the instructions rice was disbursed. The receipt of the rice was also duly acknowledged by the Contractor. Thereafter, the Secretary issued show-cause notices calling for an explanation from the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!C. Krishna Vs. University of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR361; 2005(1)KarLJ368
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is presently working as a Director, Department of Physical Education in the 1st respondent-University. The 1st respondent-University issued a notification dated 27-11-1995 calling for application for filling up of certain teaching and non-teaching posts as per Annexure-C. It is in pursuance of the said notification petitioner had applied for the post of Director in the Department of Physical Education which is a non-teaching post. Subsequently, the Board of Appointment for Non-Teaching Posts constituted by the University under the provisions of Section 50 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') conducted an interview on 15-5-1997 and in that petitioner was found to be eligible and he was selected. He was required to undergo probation for a period of two years which he satisfactorily completed on 24-4-2000. Petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 8th February, 2002, Annexure-A, by the...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Shirole Vs. Smt. Kshama Babu Shirole
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant163
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife respectively. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 475/2000 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, mental cruelty etc., while the respondent filed a petition in HMR No. 100/ 2000 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Sholapur, Maharashtra, for a decree of divorce.2. This petition is by the husband seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), 'Sholapur, Maharashtra, to stay all further proceedings in the matrimonial case in HMP. No. 100/2000 at Annexure-B.3. The petitioner asserts that the matrimonial petitions filed by the husband and wife though in two separate places, one in the State of Karnataka and the other in the State of Maharashtra, are but matters involving issues which are directly and substantially the same. In view of Section 10 of CPC providing for a specific prohibition against institution of subsequent proceedings by the very ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sampath Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant158
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a licencee under the 2nd respondent, for distribution of petrol/diesel. The terms and conditions governing the said licence are reduced into writing in the memorandum of agreement dated 7th February, 1996, entered into between the parties.2. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the anti-adulteration cell, which is not a party to this proceeding, inspected the retail outlet and submitted an inspection report, Annexure-B, pointing out to certain deficiencies detected during the inspection. Pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 10-9-2003, Annexure-C, calling upon (he petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20th September, 2003, Annexure-D, inter alia contending that the dispensing unit might have been erratic when the delivery of the petroleum product was short by 60 ml. and that the anti-adulteration cell had not used the proper measures, resulting in an improper test. T...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh @ Tiger Venkatesh @ English Venkatesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1112; ILR2005KAR538; 2005(1)KarLJ612
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This appeal is by the appellant - accused assailing the judgment of conviction dated 18.11.98 for the offence under Sections 307 and 341 I.P.C. in S.C. No. 93/93 rendered by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, sentencing him to undergo S.I. for a period of 5 years for the offence under Section 307 and S.I. for a period of one month for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:The accused - Venkatesh @ Tiger Venkatesh @ English Venkatesh, the resident of Kuvempu Nagar, Mysore, was a coolie, plucking the coconuts from the trees at the request of the owners. P.W. 13 - Sri M.N. Venkatasubbaiah, Advocate, who is residing at Saraswathipuram, Mysore, appears to have warned and advised the accused - Venkatesh, while he was making galata with PW-8 - Paddama, who is the neighbourer of PW.13 - Venkatasubbaiah. In that connection, it appears, PW. 13 - M.N. Venkatasubbaiah, reported at Saraswathipuram Police, whereas th...
Tag this Judgment!Shimoga Bus Owners Association (Registered) and ors. Vs. Union Governm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5018; 2005(1)KarLJ574
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioners have sought for striking down the amendment to Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 Gazetted on 31-5-2003 and for consequential relief of quashing the notification issued by the 2nd respondent directing to fix the speed governors to the particular types of vehicles.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 110(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the power is given to the Central Government to make rules relating to speed governors. Accordingly, Rule 118 was framed by the Central Government relating to speed governors; that the Central Government cannot delegate its powers to the State Government on the said aspect. On the said basis, he submits that the amendment to the Rule 118 and consequent notification vide Annexure-B are bad in law.3. Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, prior to its amendment reads thus:'Speed governor.-(1) On and from the commencement of this rule, such tr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »