Karnataka Court February 2005 Judgments
Katwa Infotech Limited Vs. Bhaskar Laxamanrao Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ521a
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 20-9-2004 passed in reference No. 185 of 2002 in the matter of appearance under Section 36(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of medical transcription. Respondent in the light of his termination from the petitioner-company raised a dispute in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Matter was referred to the Labour Court. One Mr. Hansi filed authorisation on 16-5-2004 in his capacity as an Executive Committee Member of the Indian Employers Federation to represent on behalf of the petitioner-company. The same was objected to by the respondent. Matter was heard. After hearing, the Court has chosen to reject the appearance of Mr. Hansi in the matter. This order is challenged in this petition.2-A. Contesting respondent has entered appearance through caveat. He opposes the petition.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ravindra Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ595
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is the owner in possession of property bearing No. 1114/D, 9th Cross, Ashoknagar, Banashankari I Stage, Bangalore measuring 30 x 46 + 49/2. He has built a house therein. The said site was initially allotted in favour of Smt. Rajamma in the year 1983 who in turn sold the same to one Smt. Pushpa who in turn sold the same in favour of Smt. Nandakishan. She constructed a house thereon and thereafter sold the same to the petitioner herein. In terms of the sale deed dated 7-7-1999. The period of non-alienation i.e., 10 years has expired in 1993. Petitioner after purchasing the property filed an application on 2-3-2003 with the first respondent for execution of an absolute sale deed in his favour. The BDA issued an endorsement dated 18-3-2003 asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as fine, representing 25% of the sale consideration. This endorsement is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.2. Notice was issued and respondents have enter...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Cyabrial
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2352; ILR2005KAR1365; 2005(2)KarLJ500
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. The point for consideration in this revision petition filed by the State challenging that portion of the judgment by which the respondent was permitted to compound the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC is whether a Trial Court can permit compounding of offences after convicting the accused for the said offences.2. The respondent (the accused No. 1) and two others (the accused Nos.2 and 3) were tried by the Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, Bellary, in S.C. No. 11/1998 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504. 506, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation was that on 24-08-1997 at about 6.30 A.M., at the house of C.W.1, the respondent in furtherance of his intention commonly shared by the accused Nos.2 and 3, attempted to commit the murder of the complainant by attacking him with a sickle. It was further alleged that he assaulted C.Ws.2 and 3 and caused injuries to them and that in that event...
Tag this Judgment!Jayapal Reddy Vs. State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1495; 2005(2)KarLJ552
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. Since this writ petition can be disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage itself, H.B. Narayan, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and Sri K.N. Phanindra to take notice for the first respondent.2. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.3. The petitioner is seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to restrain respondents 4 to 16 from casting their votes. The case of the petitioner is that they are not the residents of the constituency of 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat but they got their names included in the voters list at Annexure-A of the same constituency. The petitioner has produced Annexure-B to F to show that their names are found in Jayanagar Constituency.4. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted for the following reasons.--(i) The petitioner is seeking injunction against respondents 6 to 18 from casting their votes in the Gram Panchayat election. The proper forum ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Vs. Jamir Ahmed and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC81; 2006ACJ536; 2005(3)KarLJ113
S.B. Majage, J.1. Claimants in MVC No. 253 of 1999, who are the wife and children of deceased Nagappa Jadar and claimant in MVC No. 239 of 1999 who is the injured claimant, being not satisfied with the amount of the compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal under impugned judgment and award, are before this Court requesting to enhance the compensation and also fasten the liability with the Insurance Company as claim against Insurance Company-respondent 2 has been dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. Facts in brief are: The appellants-claimants claimed compensation before the Tribunal alleging that on 26-12-1998 there was accident of Maxi Cab (Tempo) belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent and in that, Nagappa Jadar died whereas claimant in MVC No. 239 of 1999 has sustained injuries and consequently the wife and children of deceased Nagappa and injured Shivappa are entitled to compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of said vehicle i.e., respondents. 3. T...
Tag this Judgment!S.L. Patrad Vs. Town Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ108
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner herein, questioning the legality and validity of the Order dated 31st October, 1992 bearing No. DMA Enquiry (3) Order 270 of 1989-90 on the file of the third respondent vide Annexure-C and the Order dated 21st February, 2000 bearing No. Sa. Aa. Ee. 8 KMR. 2000, Bangalore on the file of the fourth respondent vide Annexure-F, being arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to law, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The petitioner has joined the services of the first respondent-Town Municipal Council, Sirsi (hereinafter called the 'TMC'), Navalgund as 'Clerk' in 1966 and continued to work in the said post. Thereafter, during the period from 1978 to 1983, lie has worked as 'Clerk' at Dandeli and during the year 1984, he was posted to work in the first respondent-Office where he worked till 1987. When the petitioner was discharging his duty with sincerity and honesty, it is the case of the Department that, the petitioner appears to have committed some ir...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka by the Kadur Police Vs. Revannaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2676; ILR2005KAR2232; 2005(4)KarLJ404
A.C. Kabbin, J.1. The main point for consideration in this appeal preferred by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent for offences of rape and criminal intimidation, is to what extent inconsistencies in depositions of prosecution witnesses, and doubts entertained by the Trial Judge in view of such inconsistencies or any lapse in investigation would affect the acceptability of that evidence.2. The prosecution of the respondent was preceded by the following events. On the evening of 6-3-92, the complainant (PW1) look his daughter (referred to as PW2) aged about 6 years, to the Government Hospital, Kadur, alleging rape on her by the accused/ respondent. (In this judgment names of the witnesses are omitted to avoid identity of the victim and they are referred to as prosecution witnesses). The girl (PW2) had pain in her private parts and her labia majora was swollen. That had been first noticed by PW2's aunt (PW 4) on the evening of that day when PW 2 had complained to her. O...
Tag this Judgment!AswIn C. Patil Vs. Karnataka Election Commissioner and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2279; 2005(3)KarLJ619
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Since this Writ Petition can be disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage itself, Sri K.N. Phanindra is directed to take notice on behalf of first respondent.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parlies.3. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to postpone the election or the KPSC examination as the same are scheduled on the same day. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is appearing for the examination conducted by the 2nd respondents for Groups 'A' and 'B' posts and therefore he cannot cast his vote.4. The prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted for more than one reason. As per the Deccan Herald Newspaper Annexure-A dated 5-2-2005, it is published that elections in Gadag and Haveri Districts have been postponed to 27-2-2005. But the petitioner has filed this writ petition only today (25-5-2005). If really the petitioner was aggrived, he should have approached this Court immediately after the news item in Annexure-A. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR874]; ILR2005KAR2550; 2005(4)KarLJ233
Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellants in this appeal have called in question the correctness of the order dated 23rd August 2001 made in W.P.No. 1294/1999 by the learned Single Judge of this Court..2. The facts in brief may be stated as hereunder:The third respondent filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, seeking for a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to pay interest for delayed settlement of his pensionary benefits. The learned single Judge, in impugned order directed the appellants to pay the interest for the delayed settlement of pensionary benefits payable to the third respondent and thereafter proceed to recover it from the Government if the delay in settlement of the pensionary benefits was caused on account of the default on the part of the Government. Aggrieved by the said order, as noticed by us earlier, this appeal is filed.3. Sri Niranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants while strongly urging that there was no delay on the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kotrappa Byali and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ138
ORDERK. Sreedhar Roa, J.1. The petitioners are lecturers and teachers of the private aided educational institutions, some of them are in service and some are retired. The State Government vide order at No. FD SRP 96, Bangalore, granted the benefit of 5 stagnation increments to the civil servants who had no prospectus of promotion after reaching the maximum pay scales vide Annexure-C with effect from 1-4-1996. The State Government passed an order vide Annexure-A, dated 2-12-1998 to extend the benefit of stagnation increments to the employees of the private aided education institutions with effect from 25-6-1998.2. It is the contention of the petitioners that benefit of stagnation increment have to be accorded to them on par with the Government servants and with effect from 1-1-1996. The denial or delayed grant would contravene the provisions of Sections 49 and 87 and Annexure-II of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Grant-in-Aid for Primary, Secondary and Pre-University E...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »