Karnataka Court February 2005 Judgments
B.K. Syed Zakir Vs. the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant289; ILR2005KAR1676; 2005(2)KarLJ546
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. The property bearing Sy. No. 43/H, Old Sy. No. 43 situated at Kotehal Village, Basavapattana Panchayat Limits, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, belongs to M/s. K.G.N. Rice Industries Limited. They had availed loan from K.S.F.C. to set up the said industry. They had also obtained power supply from Karnataka Electricity Board. When they committed default in repayment of loan to K.S.F.C., the K.S.F.C. in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, seized the entire unit and sold the same in public auction. As the petitioner was the highest bidder the K.S.F.C. sold the entire property including the power connection to the petitioner. A registered sale deed came to be executed on 30-9-2003 as per Annexure-B.2. As the erstwhile owner had committed default in payment of electricity charges the electricity had been disconnected. The K.E.B. had filed a suit in O.S. No. 2 of 2003 before the Civil Judge Court, Davanagere, for re...
Tag this Judgment!N. Madhava Rao Vs. Managing Director, Bts Division and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KarLJ466
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This petition is filed by one Madhav Rao challenging the order dated 7-8-1992, Annexure-H, bearing No. KST.BTS.TR.ACDT.AS. 102.91.1405.2. Petitioner is working as a driver. He has got more than 15 years of experience. He never committed any accidents in his service career. On 14-3-1991 after completion of his duty he left his vehicle in the depot. His reliever did not turn up for duty. He was asked to perform the duty of his reliever also. Petitioner under these circumstances took the vehicle from the docking section. He took the vehicle in the reverse direction and in the process an accident occurred resulting in the death of his colleague. According to the petitioner he is not responsible either for causing the accident or for the consequences. Thereafter, article of charge was issued to the petitioner. He filed his reply. Thereafter an enquiry was held against him. Ultimately he was issued with an order ordering reduction of his basic pay from Rs. 1,100/- to ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bangalore Development Authority, Rep. by Its Commissioner Vs. Smt. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1386; 2005(3)KarLJ67
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal preferred by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, BDA) is directed against the Order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 19.12.2001 passed in Writ Petition No.28479 of 1999.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are:In response to an application made by the respondent herein, she was allotted a site bearing No.2268/C admeasuring 30'X40' in HAL II stage, Bangalore, by the Chairman of the BDA on 28.01.1978. The respondent paid the value of the site and thereafter, lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 26.02.1979. The respondent was put in possession of the site vide possession certificate dated 07.03.1979 marked as Annexure-C. The respondent has been paying assessment after she was put in possession of the site. In support of it, the respondent has produced a certificate dated 19.06.1981 marked as Annexure-D issued by the Revenue Officer, BDA, Bangalore. After the respondent was put in possession of the site, she mobilized funds and ...
Tag this Judgment!Pastor P. Raju Vs. State by Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ380
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. The petitioner Mr. Pastor P. Raju, filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to call for the records and quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No. 8 of 2005 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chennapatna.2. The brief facts leading to this case are that the second respondent-police arrested the petitioner on 15-1-2005 at 6.30 p.m. on the allegations that the petitioner herein has committed an offence punishable under Section 153-B(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and produced before the Court below at about 7.30 p.m. After completion of the routine enquiry, in the absence of any bail application filed by the petitioner, the Court below remanded him to the judicial custody till further orders and still he is in judicial custody but subsequently he filed the bail application under Section 436 of the Cr. P.C. came to be rejected by the Court below. Hence, he preferred this petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumar B. Jiragyal Vs. Chief of the Army Staff and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ550
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner, Vijayakumar is challenging an order at Annexure-E, dated 25-5-1998 passed by the Court-Martial, Secunderabad in the case on hand. The petitioner was a Gunner in 7 field Regiment (Gazzala), Secunderabad. He was posted as Mess Waiter. The petitioner according to the respondent struck with a meat chopping knife on the head of Captain Rajesh Masurkar. A charge-sheet was issued to him. He was charged for using criminal force to his superior in terms of Section 40(a) of the Army Act.1.1 He was punished with the sentence of RI for 28 days with effect from 21-4-1998 to 18-5-1998. On 25-5-1998. The petitioner states that he was not in a position to defend himself on account of his conviction in the matter. On 25-5-1998, statement was taken from the petitioner and the petitioner pleaded guilty in the matter. He was just released from the prison on 18-5-1998. He did not know on what charges he had been convicted. He appointed his friend and that friend did ...
Tag this Judgment!Revansiddappa and ors. Vs. Siddaramappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2806; 2005(3)KarLJ629
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 325 of 2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga. In the suit, the petitioners filed the written statement and thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint. The amendment application filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioners also filed additional written statement. After filing of the additional written statement, the petitioners filed application seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the earlier written statement filed by them and to substitute the new written statement. The application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the Court below. Challenging the legality and correctness of the present petition is filed.I have heard Sri P.S. Mali Patil for the petitioners.2. The only question to be considered by this Court in this petition is whether under Order 8, ...
Tag this Judgment!Muttanna Shankar Chavan and ors. Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR551]; ILR2005KAR1456; 2005(2)KarLJ571
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. The petitioners herein, questioning the legality and validity of the Office Order dated 4th December 2002 bearing No.D.V-2/2002-EC.II on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure D, have presented the instant Writ Petitions. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners in the post held by them with all other consequential benefits and on par with other selected candidates in respondents force.2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant Writ Petitions is that in pursuance of the Notification issued by the second respondent, which was published in the news paper in the month of August September 2002, inviting eligible candidates for selection and appointment to various posts including the post of 'Safai Karmachari' and further notifying that all the eligible candidates desirous of joining the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), should attend for a personal test and intervie...
Tag this Judgment!Siddaganga Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2802; 2005(2)KarLJ544
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. One Sri L.V. Mesta, Senior Auditor of Co-operative Societies was deputed to petitioner's Bank. The provisions of Rule 441 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 lays down the terms and conditions relating to the payment of salary and emoluments to the civil servants, who are posted to regular establishments but as an addition to such establishment. L.V. Mesta, took treatment for cardiac disease. The said civil servant was given medical reimbursement of Rs. 95,621/- by the first respondent. Respondents 1 to 4 now invoking the above Rule 441 seek recovery of medical reimbursement granted to Sri L.V. Mesta. The provisions of Rule 441 are extracted hereunder:'441. When an addition is made to a regular establishment on the condition that its cost, or a definite portion if its cost, shall be recovered from the persons for whose benefit the additional establishment is created, recoveries shall be made under the following rules:(a) The amount to be recovered sh...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Revanasiddappa Vs. Superintending Engineer, Karnataka Power Trans ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ583
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Though this matter is listed today for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for both the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the Final Notice dated 3-10-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent bearing No. EE:HD.TL-SS:BW-RC:QRS. No. 2 (AE/JE): 2932-38 vide Annexure-A and the communication dated 18-3-2002 vide Annexure-C, on the file of the 2nd respondent, has presented this writ petition. Further, the petitioner sought to direct the respondents to refund the penal rent recovered from his salary from March 2002.3. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner is working as Junior Engineer, O and M, Doddagubbi, KPTCL and he has been allotted the quarters at Banaswadi sub-station. The petitioner was transferred from the said place to another place and in view of his transfer he is supposed to vacate the quarters allotted to him at Banaswadi as early as on 5-6-1997. However, as per the exis...
Tag this Judgment!Achutha Prabhu Vs. Vijaya Bank, Mani Branch and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: III(2007)BC182; [2005]128CompCas795(Kar); 2005(3)KarLJ403
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner-judgment-debtor has challenged the orders passed by the Executing Court on 23-2-1996, by which his application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC to set aside the sale has been dismissed and also the order dated 29-7-2004 passed by the Appellate Court confirming that order.2. Pacts, giving rise to the petition are: The first respondent-decree-holder Bank obtained a money decree against the petitioner-judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 186 of 1989 and in execution of the final decree passed on 22-6-1991, Execution No. 65 of 1992 was filed for the sale of property shown therein, On the basis of sale papers filed by the Bank, sale notice was issued and served on the petitioner-judgment-debtor and the judgment-debtor appeared through Advocate on 1-6-1992. However, as objections were not filed by judgment-debtor on 1-7-1992, sale proclamation was ordered along with sale warrant, On 31-3-1993, the office noted that the extent of the land...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »