Karnataka Court May 2004 Judgments
State Bank of Mysore Vs. Dakshayani Premesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ230; (2004)IIILLJ707Kant
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by the Management of the State Bank of Mysore, being aggrieved by the order dated 7-6-2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 4839 of 2001 wherein, the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 2-9-2000 of the management of the Bank relieving the writ petitioner from services of the Bank under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme with effect from 4-9-2000 and further directed the Bank to consider the application dated 23-2-2001 filed by the writ petitioner under special policy of Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the year 2001.2. The writ petitioner, for the sake of brevity henceforth referred to as an 'employee', was working as an Assistant Manager at Mahalakshmi Layout Branch of the appellant-Bank. The Bank accepted her option to be governed by the State Bank of Mysore Employees' (Pension) Regulations, 1995 which came into force with effect from 29-9-1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'). The employee having completed 25 years of qualifying se...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Naik Raja C. Vs. Oic Signals Records and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3074
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner in this petition is seeking for a relief of promotion to the rank of Havildar and the consequential benefits including pensionary benefits. Petitioner joined the Corps of SIGNALS, Indian Army on 13.7.1984. He retired on 1.3.2000 due to his coming under low medical category.2. Petitioner, while he was on part of annual leave in 1992, suffered an accident on 4.11,1992 and got himself injured on his left elbow. It was beyond his control. He was admitted to Command Airforce Hospital, Bangalore on 4.11.1992 and was discharged on 7,11.1992. Airforce Command Hospital forwarded the Categorisation Medical Board Proceedings of the individual to the OIC Signals Records, Jabalpur, MP with a copy of the proceedings along with the injury report vide their letter dated 21.12.1992 in terms of Annexure-A. According to the petitioner, it is the duty of the unit to conduct the enquiry and publish the injury casualty and also low medical category part-II order (Casualty)...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnachudamani S. Utnal Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Kar)132; [2004]269ITR272(KAR); [2004]269ITR272(Karn)
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned notices dt. 17th Oct., 2000, vide Annexs. A and B, has presented these writ petitions.2. The grievance of the petitioner as made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in these writ petitions is that, the petitioner is an income-tax assessee; he is submitting his IT returns every year and he has submitted his IT returns for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Be that as it may, to the shock and surprise to the petitioner, he had received two notices dt. 17th Oct., 2000, from the ITO, Ward No. 1 Bijapur, under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, alleging that income of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid two assessment years has escaped assessments within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act, and also calling upon him to submit additional return in the prescribed form in respect of his income for the aforesaid two assessment years. The said impugned notices are alleged to have been ...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Krishnakumar Vs. Smt. Radhalakshmi Amma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ391
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. This R.F.A. preferred under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-3-1996 passed in O.S. No. 10472 of 1993 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (for short, 'the Court below'). The appellant is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and for separate possession.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff is the wife/widow of late M.C. Parameshwaran Nair. The defendant is the son of M.C. Parameshwaran Nair through his first wife, late Kanakalatha by name. M.C. Parameshwaran Nair died intestate on 29-2-1992 at Bangalore leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant as his only surviving heirs to succeed to the suit property which was his self-acquired property. M.C. Parameshwaran Nair was employed in Indian Airlines. The suit schedule property is a residential building consist...
Tag this Judgment!National Mineral Development Corporation Limited and ors. Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3519
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Since these appeals are directed against the common order dated 6th January 2000 made in Writ Petition Nos. 7942 and 7943 of 1994 and connected Writ Petitions by the learned Single Judge, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The National Mineral Development Corporation Limited which was the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 7942-43 of 1994 is the appellant in Writ Appeal Nos. 1589 to 1590 of 2000. It is a Government of India undertaking incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in carrying on mining activity. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1169 of 2000 was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3718 of 1994. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 4767 of 2000 was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 34385 of 1995. It is a partnership firm carrying on business in exploitation of mines in the State of Karnataka. The appellants in Writ Appeal Nos. 1253 to 1260 of 2000 were the petitioners in Writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Shubha Vs. State by Station House Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2797; 2004(4)KarLJ240
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. by the petitioner and the under duress prisoner in Crime No. 377 of 2003 of Viveknagar Police Station, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the IPC.2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has raised his preliminary objections as to the propriety of this Court hearing the present petition. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Anr., : 1987CriLJ1872 and later judgment in the case of Harjeet Singh alias Seeta v. State of Punjab and Anr., : 2002CriLJ571 , it is contended that as the first bail application of the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 569 of 2004 was heard at length by my brother Judge Hon'ble Justice Kabbin and when he was about to dictate the orders, the petitioner has sought permission to wi...
Tag this Judgment!Basana Gouda Vs. the Land Tribunal, by Its Secretary and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2413
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant's family consists of himself, his wife, one son and one daughter. According to appellant, there was an oral partition between himself and his minor son [Sharanappa) on 13-3-1972 and subsequently that was reduced into writing in the form of a memorandum of partition [palupatti]. According to appellant, under the said petition his minor son had been allotted Sy.No.86 [7 acre 21 guntas ], 156 (6 acre 15 guntas ], 65 (6 guntas ], 66/1 [2 acres 17 guntas ], 290/A [34 guntas ], 293/A (1 acre 11 guntas ] and 294/B [18 guntas ] in all 19 Acres 02 guntas; and the appellant held the remaining land viz., Sy.nos.69/3 [3 acres 12 guntas ], 74/2 [6 acres 20 guntas ], 85 [10 acres 5 guntas ], 334 [24 guntas ], 335 [34 guntas ], 338 [5 acres 6 guntas ] and 40 [13 acres] in all 39 acres 21 guntas.2. The appellant filed a declaration under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') in regard to the lands held by him. In the said declarat...
Tag this Judgment!Basanagouda Vs. the Land Tribunal and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ193
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant's family consists of himself, his wife, one son and one daughter. According to appellant, there was an oral partition between himself and his minor son [ Sharanappa ] on 13-3-1972 and subsequently that was reduced into writing in the form of a memorandum of partition [palupatti]. According to appellant, under the said petition his minor son had been allotted Sy. Nos. 86 [7 acres 21 guntas ], 156 [6 acres 15 guntas], 65 [6 guntas], 66/1 [2 acres 17 guntas], 290/A [34 guntas], 293/A [1 acre 11 guntas] and 294/B [18 guntas] in all 19 acres 02 guntas; and the appellant held the remaining land viz., Sy. Nos. 69/3 [3 acres 12 guntas], 74/2 [6 acres 20 guntas], 85 [10 acres 5 guntas], 334 [24 guntas], 335 [34 guntas], 338 [5 acres 6 guntas] and 40 [13 acres] in all 39 acres 21 guntas.2. The appellant filed a declaration under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] in regard to the lands held by him. In the said declaration...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›