Karnataka Court June 2004 Judgments
S.D. Sridhar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)KarLJ509
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is an Orthopaedically Handicapped person and he belongs to OBC category. The disability of the petitioner is due to post polio paralysis with pelvic obliquity. The disability extent is upto 65%. An advertisement was issued by the second respondent calling for applications for the post of Engineering Assistant Grade II. Petitioner applied for the said post. According to the petitioner 48 candidates applied for the said post and six candidates were found eligible. Respondents 2 and 3 relaxed the conditions of enrolment in terms of Annexure-D. According to the petitioner, out of the shortlisted candidates respondent enrolled two candidates. One is appointed in the Bangalore office and the other candidate is appointed in the Hyderabad Office. Petitioner states that the third respondent on his own accord to help his candidate who had secured just fifty per cent marks had not only relaxed the percentage from 60 to 50 but also ignored those candidates who we...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Controller, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corpora ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ455; 2005(1)KarLJ530
1. The appellant in this appeal is a Divisional Controller of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. In this appeal the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 17th August, 2002 made in No. WCA.CR.25 of 2001 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), Gulbarga Division, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,94,120/ (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety-four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Only) by way of compensation to respondents 1 to 6 on account of death of one Revanasiddappa (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') who was working as a Conductor in the appellant-Corporation. The 1st respondent is the wife of the workman, the 2nd respondent is the mother and respondents 3 to 6 are his children.2. The respondents made a claim before the Commissioner under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking compensation from the appellant on the ground that the workman had d...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Controller, Nekrtc Vs. Sangamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR743]; ILR2005KAR20
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The Appellant in this Appeal is a Divisional Controller of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. In this appeal the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 17th August 2002 made in No.WCA.CR.25/2001 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner'), Gulbarga Division, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,94,120/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Only) by way of compensation to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on account of death of one Revanasiddappa, [hereinafter referred to as 'the workman'] who was working as a Conductor in the Appellant-Corporation. The 1st Respondent is the wife of the workman, the 2nd Respondent is the mother and Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are his children.2. The Respondents made a claim before the Commissioner under Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') seeking compensation from the Appellant on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Durgamba Motors Vs. the Dy. Commissioner for Transport and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant72
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner is the registered owner of two tourist vehicles bearing Registration Nos. KA-20 C 5155 and KA-20 8694. Conversion of the vehicles was sought from Tourist vehicle as stage carriage vehicles with enhancement of the seating capacity of 48 + 2. Accordingly, alteration was granted by second respondent. The petitioner provided push back seats in the vehicles and started operating them on routes in question after obtaining permits under the provisions of the M. V. Act of 1988 read with KMV Rules of 1989. The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent got a complaint lodged through the M. L. A. with the second respondent, and on the basis of the same the vehicles were checked and reports were sent to him. On the basis of the same, in Annexure-A dated 27-9-2002 the 2nd, respondent withdrew the permission granted earlier to the petitioner for alteration of the vehicles and directed the petitioner to restore the vehicles as Tourist Vehicles. Against the s...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Narayana Vs. K. Sheshagiriyappa, Since Deceased by His Lrs and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3662
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13.9.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Koppa, in O.S. No. 30/1995 on issue No. 4. By the impugned order, the Court below has held that the suit is not barred under Section 69(5) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the adjoining land owners and the plaintiffs are drawing water continuously from the channel since more than 100 years. As the defendants blocked the said water passage, the suit in O.S. No. 30/1995 is filed for the following reliefs:' a) A declaration that the plaintiffs have acquired a right of easement by prescription to conduct water from the stream to their wet lands described in plaint schedule lands A to C through the channel 'OPQR' existing on the western side of the plaint schedule 'D' land.b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his workmen and agents from closing the channel 'OPQR' o...
Tag this Judgment!A. Hasan Bava Vs. P.V. Upadhya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC137; 2005CriLJ701; ILR2004KAR2914; 2004(5)KarLJ157
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 306/02 pending in the Court of the XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, has challenged the order dated 24.11.2002 passed by the said Court. By that order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. praying for permission to adduce his evidence and the evidence of two Witnesses.2. The petitioner was the accused in C.C.No. 35056/2000 on the file of the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After closure of the complainant's evidence, his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.1.02 and the case was posted to 29.1.02 for defence evidence. On the ground that for several dates, the accused/ petitioner failed to adduce defence evidence his case was closed by the learned Addl.C.M.M. and after hearing...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chennakesavalu Vs. the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Rep. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR919]; ILR2004KAR2859; 2004(4)KarLJ568; (2004)IIILLJ958Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is an employee of the HMT Limited w.e.f. 30.8.1968. He took voluntary retirement on 13.5.1998. He was a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 from 28.5.1971 to 15.11.1995. He thereafter continued to be a member of the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 from 16.11.1995 till the date of his retirement. It is stated that he received a letter dated 1.9.1998 (Annexure -A) from the second respondent informing him that his monthly pension would be Rs. 399/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure-B) seeking for clarification in the matter. Reply was sent stating that the pension has rightly been fixed. He refers to several correspondence between the parties in this regard. In the absence of any, positive response, petitioner is before me challenging the endorsement Annexures C, D, F and G.2. Respondents entered appearance and they have filed their statement of objections. They justify their action.3. Heard the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Basanagouda and anr. Vs. the Social Economic Cultural Association, by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2918; 2004(4)KarLJ632
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. In this petition the petitioners are assailing the order of the reference Court viz. Addi. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bijapur, in rejecting the I.A.I filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in LAC. No. 189/91 by order dated 17.1.04.2. It appears that the petitioners are the owners of the land in S.No. 424/1 measuring 8.6-1/2 acres situate at Mahal Baghayath of Bijapur District. This land is shown to have been acquired at the instance of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'the L.A.O.' ) Petitioners being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAO sought for reference. Accordingly, the LAO referred the applications to the Civil Court as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The reference order is said to be of 1991. During the pendency of reference application for enquiry in the year 1998, I.A.I is filed by the petitioners herein before the Civil Court ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. C.S. Krishnamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3440; ILR2004KAR3058; 2004(7)KarLJ298
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J. 1. This appeal is by the CBI, Bangalore, assailing the judgment of acquittal of the accused in CC No. 131/1990 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore City, dated 20.3.1998, acquitting the accused ground for want of proper sanction to prosecute the accused under Section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.2. The accused Sri C.S. Krishnamurthy, Technical Supervisor, Bangalore Telephones, Bangalore, was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, alleging that during the period from 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 he acquired assets which were disproportionate to his known source of income and as on 27.6.1986 he was in possession of movables and immovable assets worth Rs. 4,01,454.58 Ps. which were disproportionate to his known source of income and he did not give satisfactory account. The CBI, Bangalore City, after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet. The learned Special Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3708; [2006]147STC638(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court, has by an order dated 16-9- 2003, referred the following question of law for the opinion of a Full bench:Whether the High Court has the power to grant interim order of stay of recovery of the tax, pending, disposal of a Revision Petition filed by the assessee under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.Facts & reason for reference:2. The petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short) challenging the order dated 26-10-2002 passed in STA 361/2000 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed IA. I/ 03 under Section 151 CPC praying for stay of recovery of the balance of the disputed amount of tax pending disposal of the Revision Petition. The State resisted the application by contending that there is no inherent power in this Court to grant interim orders while exercising revisional power under Section 23 or appellate powe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »