Karnataka Court January 2005 Judgments
Mohammed Salar Vs. Syed Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005ACJ1111; ILR2005KAR2388; 2005(2)KarLJ85
Mohan Shanthanagoudar, J.1. Questioning the correctness of the judgment and award dated 18-1-2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), in M.V.C. No. 1649 of 1995, fixing the liability on him to pay the compensation awarded, the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. MYJ 6666 has preferred M.F.A. No. 2563 of 2000. On the other hand, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Mujju, have preferred Cross-Objection Petition No. 25 of 2002 for enhancement of compensation.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal as well as the cross-objections are as under:That on 20-11-1994 at about 6.00 p.m. on Honnali-Shimoga Road, at Chilur Village, on account of rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry bearing No. MYJ 6666 by its driver, belonging to the appellant herein, the son of the respondents 1 and 2 who was aged about 7 years, studying in second...
Tag this Judgment!Angadi Shanthanandkumar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ133
ORDERBrief Facts in W.P. Nos. 19180 to 19214 of 20041. Angadi Shanthanandkumar and others have filed Writ Petition Nos. 19180 to 19214 of 2004 seeking for a direction directing the second respondent to regularise their admissions and to treat them as regular recognised students studying under third respondent-College.2. Petitioners were eligible to be admitted to the BAMS course. In furtherance of starting of the College by the third respondent, petitioners made applications along with others to be selected for the first year BAMS course. Third respondent conducted entrance test for all applicants and ultimately admitted the petitioners according to merit. They were admitted for the academic year 2002-2003. Second respondent fixed the last date for admissions with fine as 15-1-2003. All petitioners are prosecuting their studies from the date of their admission and it has been 1 year course of the first year. Third respondent forwarded the list of admitted students along with the requis...
Tag this Judgment!Angadi Shantanandkumar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secreta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1113
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. BRIEF FACTS IN WP NOS. 19180-214 OF 20041. Angadi Shanthanandkumar and others have filed Writ Petitions Nos. 19180-214 of 2004 seeking for a direction directing the second respondent to regularise their admissions and to treat them as regular recognised students studying under third respondent College.2. Petitioners were eligible to be admitted to the BAMS course. In furtherance of starting of the college by the third respondent petitioners made applications along with others to be selected for the first year BAMS course. Third respondent conducted entrance test for all applicants and ultimately admitted the petitioners according to merit. They were admitted for the academic year 2002-2003. Second respondent fixed the last date for admissions with fine as 15.1.2003. All petitioners are prosecuting their studies from the date of their admission and it has been 1 1/2 year course of the first year. Third respondent forwarded the list of admitted students along with t...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Mallikarjunappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ205
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition before this Court by the purchaser of a granted land is the second round of litigation. The subject-matter land, a extent of 3 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No. 51 of Ganadakatte Village, Channagiri Taluk in Davangere District, is a piece of agricultural land which had been granted in favour of one Kariyappa-father of the third respondent -a person belonging to Adi Karnataka Community [scheduled caste] in terms of grant/saguvall chit dated 6-2-1957. It is this land that the grantee had sold in favour of one Kariyappa -father of the writ petitioner. The question is as to whether the said sale transaction is hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act').2. The son of the grantee Bhimappa third respondent herein - had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, praying for invalidation of the sale and for restoration of the land...
Tag this Judgment!Subedar K. Ponnurangam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ213
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has sought for calling the records from the third respondent and to peruse the complete case of recommendation to the Honorary rank of Lieutenant/Captain, which is to be conferred on the petitioner on 26th January, 2003 and sought for a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned communication dated 16th August, 2002 at Annexure-A issued by fourth respondent. The petitioner has further sought for a mandamus to first and second respondents to grant the rank of the Honorary Lieutenant/Captain to the petitioner on the occasion of Republic Day and Independence Day, since the petitioner is meeting all other criteria of the said Honorary rank and to direct second respondent to extend all consequential benefits including monetary benefits from the date the petitioner would have been given the Honorary rank and the juniors of the petitioner have been given Honorary rank.2. This is rather an unfortunate case. The case of the petitioner is that...
Tag this Judgment!Taluka Shikshana Prasaraka Mandalis Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by It ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1415; 2005(3)KarLJ378
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner institution is running an Arts college in Sindgi Town . The 5th respondent is appointed as lecturer in political science in the college of the petitioner in the year 2000-01. The student ratio fell below required bench mark rendering the 5th respondent a surplus staff without sufficient work. The third Respondent passed an Order deputing 5th Respondent to the college of the 4th respondent where there was sufficient work load. The third Respondent inspected the college of the petitioner and found that the situation had improved and there was sufficient work load for the political science lecturer and passed an Order at Annexure-A dated 3.1.2003 cancelling the deputation and re- posted the 5th Respondent to the college of the petitioner.2. The government by Order at Annexure-B as a special case transferred the 5th Respondent to the college of the 4th Respondent by shifting the post from the college of the petitioner to the college of the 4th Resp...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Rajashekaraiah Vs. the Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR19]; ILR2005KAR982; 2005(2)KarLJ223; (2005)IILLJ439Kant
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The Miscellaneous application for setting aside the ex parte award filed by the respondent herein was allowed by the III Add Labour Court, Bangalore, by order dated 3rd June 2003 which is impugned herein.2. The records disclose that the Labour Court passed the Award dated 27-4-2002 in pursuance to the Reference Under Section 10(1)(c) of I.D. Act, and the same was published on 29.11.2002. The respondent herein filed Miscellaneous Application for setting aside the said award on 28.1.2003 on the ground that the same is passed ex parte. The said Miscellaneous Application was allowed on 3.6.2003.3. The main grievance of the petitioner-workman is that the Miscellaneous Application dated 28.1.2003 is filed beyond 30 days from the date of publication of the award and consequently, the application should not have been entertained by the Labour Court.4. Though there is no express provision in the Industrial Disputes Act or the rules framed thereunder, which gives ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. N. Venkataswamy Reddy Vs. the Bangalore University and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ69
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner working as a Professor and Dean of Faculty of Arts in Bangalore University. The Vice-Chancellor by order at Annexure-B, dated 28-6-2004 nominated the petitioner to syndicate. The terms of nomination makes it explicit that the term is for one year w.e.f. 1-7-2004 or till the reconsideration of syndicate as envisaged under Section 38(1), whichever is earlier.2. The term of syndicate to which the petitioner is nominated expired and reconstituted w.e.f. 6-11-2004. It is the contention of the petitioner that even in the reconstituted syndicate, he is entitled to hold the office as a nominated member until the expiry of one year as per Annexure-B. The relevant provisions of Sections 28, 38 and 39 are extracted hereunder for convenient reference.-'28. Syndicate.-(1) The Syndicate shall consist of the following Members, namely.-xxx xxx xxx.(d) One Dean nominated by the Vice-Chancellor for a period of one year by rotation according to seniority.38. The ...
Tag this Judgment!ireppa Thirakappa Shouradha and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ193
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners are the elected members of Town Municipal Council, Savanur. They are aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-F, dated 30-12-2004 passed by the first respondent disqualifying their membership. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners for having disobeyed the whip of no-confidence motion against the President of the Town Municipal Council issued as per Annexures-B, B1 and B2.2. The impugned order is attacked on the ground that there is no specific direction in the whip issued as required under Section 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987. Consequently, there is no whip in the eye of law. In the absence of a valid whip, the impugned order is bad in law. The decisions in Viswanath Kappathanavar v. Channu Patil, : AIR2000Kant247 and Shobha v. State Election Commission, 2003(3) KCCR Sh. N. 205, are pressed into service.3. The ground...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Muralidhar and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Kar)149; [2005]274ITR459(KAR); [2005]274ITR459(Karn)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioners are all employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'the LIC') and are working as Development Officers in the various branches of the Corporation.2. In these petitions, the petitioners have sought for quashing of a circular Ref. Mktg./ZL/26/2004 dated April 24, 2004 (copy at annexure B to the petition), issued by the first respondent--the LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai, and for further directions to the Corporation and its branches not to deduct income-tax at source in respect of payment to the petitioners known as conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance, particularly for the year 2004-2005 and for other consequential relief.3. These petitions are filed contending that the payment which the petitioners receive from the employer and which is known by the name conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance, is exempted from income-tax under the provisions of Clause (14) of Section 10 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »