Karnataka Court March 2004 Judgments
The Management of Manipal Power Press, Rep. by Its General Manager and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR175]; ILR2004KAR2096; 2004(4)KarLJ143; (2004)IIILLJ400Kant
Chandrashekaraiah, J. 1. These Writ appeals are by the workmen and the management challenging the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 42704-708/99, 765-66/99, 15383/99, 40297-299/1999 & 2778/2000 & 2778/2000 & 2920/2000 dated 15-11-2000 and W.P.No. 35364/2000 c/w 18322/2000 and 7466-7468/2000 dated 4.1.2001.2. The workmen made an application for amendment of the standingorders of the year 1968 by making an application under Sub Section(2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946 (for short, 'the Act'). The said application was allowed by theCertifying Officer by fixing the age of retirement of the workmen at 58years. This order was challenged by both the workmen and themanagement by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. TheAppellate Authority by order dated 6.1.99 set aside the order of theCertifying Officer on the ground that the principles of natural justicehad not been followed, and remanded the matter to the Certifying officerfor ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. W.R. Sarode
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2100; 2004(7)KarLJ179
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The Department has come up in this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 28th October, 1999 passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, quashing the orders passed by the department directing recovery of Rs. 23,400/- out of the pay of the respondent and further directing the department to refund the amount already recovered by it from the respondent.2. The respondent was charged with dereliction of duty and improper supervision resulting in continued fraud at Gulbarga RS. PO by the NSC Counter PA resulting in huge loss of Rs. 1,81,350/- to the department. The charge is based on the allegation that the respondent failed to notice the non-availability of two discharged N.S.Cs at Gulbarga HO on 25-2-1992. The disciplinary authority found the respondent guilty of the charge and taking into consideration that the role of the respondent in the fiasco is limited to supervision only, imposed the punishment of recovery of Rs. 23,400/-...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Venugopal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2899; II(2005)DMC140; 2004(5)KarLJ613
ORDERM.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.1. This petition by the State is filed under Sections 397 sand 401 Cr. P. C. praying the Court for setting aside the order dated 18-5-2001 passed in S. C. No. 460/1991 on the file of the XXV Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the application filed by the State under Section 311 Cr. P. C.2. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri B. A. Belliappa, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioner-state, and Sri C. H. Hanumantharaya, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents-accused.3. The learned Government Pleader strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is illegal and improper. The learned Sessions Judge had not applied judicial mind and had not appreciated the facts in issue in the right perspective and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He also contends that the prosecution should be provided full opportunity to prove its case. Hence, he pra...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Hegde Vs. Rukmini Heggadathi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3844; 2004(7)KarLJ184
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order passed in Ex. Petition No. 356/95 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,), udupi dated 20.4.2001 dismissing the execution petition as not maintainable has come up with this revision.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Three plaintiff viz., (1) Sunanda v. Hegde, (2) Anitha and (3) Vijayalakshmi brought a suit for partition against the other branch of the family in O.S No. 20/1961 (O.S No. 71/59 on the file of the Sub Court, Mangalore) numbering 25 defendants. In the said suit, the former Judge of the Supreme Court viz., Sri K.S. Hegde was appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute among the family members as they were governed by the Law of Aliyasanthana prevailing in the areas of south Canara and other parts. The learned Arbitrator Sri K.S Hegde passed an award on 5.1.1982 allotting 'A' schedule properties to the plaintiffs, 'B' schedule properties to the L.Rs of the first defendant Sri B. Hirianna H...
Tag this Judgment!Y.N. Gangadhara Setty and ors. Vs. Karnataka Milk Federation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)KarLJ621
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a direction directing respondent 1-Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) to restore possession of the schedule property forthwith to them and to hold an enquiry regarding the acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondents and fix the responsibility and for other reliefs.2. The facts in this case are as follows.--The then Government of Mysore issued a notification dated 24-12-1960 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the State Act, proposing to acquire 20 acres 32 guntas of land, which includes the schedule land, invoking the urgency clause. The subject-matter of this writ petition is in respect of 2 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy. No. 76/2 of Audugodi Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk bounded on the east by Sy. No. 76/1, west by 76/2, north by 76/3 and south by Bangalore Hosur Road (hereinafter referred to as 'Schedule land'). Pursuant to the notification referred to abov...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Sunila JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2901; 2004(95)ECC500; ILR2004KAR1798; 2004(3)KarLJ233
ORDERN.K Jain, C.J.1. One Simila Jain wife of detenu D.K Jain S/o. Padamsen Jain has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order dated 12-6-2003 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (hereinafter called 'COFEPOSA')2. It is stated that the second respondent on the basis of specific information that the husband of the petitioner was making undue monetary gains by use of duty-free imported mulberry raw silk yarn and exporting bricks and other waste material instead of power grade silk yarn after making use of the duty-free imported material i.e., mulberry raw silk yarn. Surveillance was kept by the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bangalore. On 29-1-2003, a detailed examination of the contents of the container revealed that there were 110 bales of polythene sacks in it, each bale had 16 brown paper packets tied with plastic string, each such packet was...
Tag this Judgment!Medreich Sterilab Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant420; ILR2004KAR2545; 2004(3)KarLJ404
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of various pharmaceuticals preparations.2. The second respondent-Drug Controller/Licensing Authority is the Competent Authority to issue licence under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act' for short) and the Rules framed thereunder. He has issued a licence to the petitioner-Company for manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations, apart from others, a drug formulation by trade name 'Augmentin Duo Syrup' (Amoxycillin and Clavulanic Acid) and the said licence is renewed from time to time. It is the claim of the petitioner-Company that the Augmentin range of preparations manufactured by the petitioner-Company is sold all over the country.3. The cause of action pleaded in the petition for the petitioner-Company to approach this Court is the show-cause notice issued by the second respondent to the petitioner-Company dated 7-12-20...
Tag this Judgment!Chiramith Precision (India) Vs. Deputy Commr. of Cus. (P)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ372; 2004(95)ECC7; 2004(169)ELT145(Kar)
ORDERM.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.1. This Criminal Petition by the accused filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying the Court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 87/2001 on the file of the Addl. C.J.M., Mangalore, wherein the process had been ordered against the petitioners for offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act on the complaint submitted by the respondent herein under Section 200 Cr.P.C., challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings impugned.2. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri Mohammad Ali, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Smt. Shireen Zafrullah, the Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the entire proceedings impugned before this Court are illegal and improper. The complainant was not at all justified in filing the complaint before the learned Magistrate. He also contends that the fact finding authority i.e., t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Varadaraja Pai Vs. Corporation Bank, by Its Chairman and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR834]; ILR2004KAR2580; 2004(5)KarLJ279; (2004)IIILLJ726Kant
ORDERGururajan, J. 1. Petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance without deductions from 7-10-2000 from the date on which he was kept under suspension.2. Petitioner joined the services of the bank as a clerk in the year 1971. He was promoted from time to time. While he was working as senior manager officiating as chief manager at Vasco-Goa Branch of the first respondent, he was kept under suspension on 7-10-2000 pending enquiry, by the first respondent, based on a complaint. The order of suspension was seized by the CBI, while investigating the complaint lodged by the bank. After issuing the suspension order, the respondents did not take any action. On 9-9-2002, a charge sheet was issued by the second respondent. CBI started investigating and filed a charge sheet against the GPA holders and the petitioner before the special Court for CBI cases in Bangalore. Petitioner was paid subsistence allowance but it was less than what is contemplated und...
Tag this Judgment!Kannada Nadu Party Vs. the Election Commission of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant330; ILR2004KAR3574; 2004(4)KarLJ558
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. 'Kannada Nadu Party' represented by its President Sri Rathnapal A. Shetti is the petitioner before this Court. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari, to quash the impugned communication of the Election Commission of India to the petitioner bearing No. 56/54/ 2003/J.S.III/1376 dated 20-1-2004, wherein the Commission has rejected the request of the petitioner for allotment of common symbols for its candidates in the ensuing elections to the House of the People and Legislative Assembly of the State of Karnataka.2. On an application filed by the petitioner under Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, ('Act 1951' for short) for its registration as a political party, the Election Commission of India has registered the petitioner -- 'Kannada Nadu Party' as a political party for the purpose of the Act, 1951. The intimation of registration issued by the Election Commission to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »