Karnataka Court February 2005 Judgments
Khaza MoinuddIn and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1162; 2005(2)KarLJ337
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. The Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Respondents to pay the salary for the period from 30.4.1994 to 30.4.1996 and fix the pension on the basis of the last salary that could be paid on 30.4.1996.2. The Respondent Nos. l to 3 are represented by Sri H S Surendra, learned High Court Government pleader. The Respondent No. 4 is represented by Sri B G Sridharan, learned Counsel.3. Heard arguments.4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under :-During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner died. Therefore, his L.Rs., have come on record. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was appointed as an Attender in the Department of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. After reorganisation on 1.1.1957, the petitioner was transferred to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee under the-jurisdiction of the Karnataka State. As per the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules 1952 governing ...
Tag this Judgment!Woodlands Hotel Private Limited Vs. Krishna Nayak and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR784]; 2005(3)KarLJ372; (2005)IIILLJ508Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These petitions are filed challenging the order passed on I.A. No. III dated 27-12-2004 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in serial Applications 5 to 10 and 12 to 34 of 2003 in I.D. No. 101 of 1999 vide Annexures-A21 to A29. Petitioner is also challenging a common order dated 22-3-2004 passed on I.A. No. 5 vide Annexure-B.2. Petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of Lodging and Boarding. Thirtieth respondent namely, the workmen of Woodlands, raised an Industrial Dispute pertaining to the various charter of demands which have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore for adjudication and the same is pending as ID. No. 101 of 1999. According to the petitioner there exists no dispute in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this reference. Majority of the workman resigned their membership from the HMS Union and jo...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Woodlands Hotel Private Limited Vs. Workmen of Woodlands ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ559; (2005)IILLJ924Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This petition is filed by the management of Woodlands Hotels Private Limited, challenging the order dated 30-6-2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in I.A. No. 10 in I.D. No. 101 of 1999.2. Facts in brief are as under:Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of Lodging and Boarding. The respondent-union served charter of demand on the petitioner in terms of Annexure-B. The conciliation failed. The State referred the charter of demands for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. The said dispute is pending adjudication in I.D. No. 101 of 1999. During the pendency of the dispute majority of the petitioner's workmen resigned from the membership of the respondent-union and joined another new general union called KTUC Union. The workmen of the petitioner after joining the KTUC Union submitted similar charter of demands in terms of Annexure-E. Petitioner filed an application before the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Suganthip Vs. the Competent Authority and Administrator
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2996; 2005(102)ECC493; 2005(6)KarLJ154
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The present petition is filed challenging Annexure-D dt. 10-1-2000 passed by the respondent and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, in case No. FPA No. ND3/ BOM/2000/9379 as per Annexure-E dated 14-12-2001.2. According to the petitioner, she is a graduate doing real estate business in Bangalore. She was doing the said business even prior to her marriage. The petitioner married one Pakeerathan alias Ravi in the year 1990 and who died on 3-2-1997.3. By order of the Government of India dt. 30-9-1997 one Manivannan Mahadevan alias Ruben was ordered to be detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act') as he was found in possession of 23 Kgs. of heroin on 24-4-1997. On interrogation, Manivannan, revealed that the husband of the Petitioner Ravi as one of his associates and that Ravi was looking after the business of drug trafficking. In the circumstances, th...
Tag this Judgment!Kulkarni Sudheer Hanumanth Rao and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka, Re ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1332; 2005(2)KarLJ329
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. These Writ Petitions are directed against the Government Notification bearing No. LAW.59.LAC.2003 dated 30.4.2003, whereby discharging the Petitioners from the Karnataka Judicial Service.2. The Respondents are represented by Sri Kempanna, learned Government Pleader.3. Heard common arguments.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions may be stated as under:-By means of impugned Notification bearing No.LAW.106.LAC.97 dated 18.2.1998 by the Law Department, the Petitioners were appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the Karnataka Judicial Service. After the Petitioners underwent the training conducted by the Respondent No. 2, the Petitioners were given postings. It is the case of the Petitioners that they have served the subordinate judiciary of the State of Karnataka from 2.3.1998 till the Petitioners were discharged on 30.4.2003 from service. On 30.4.2003, by impugned Notification, the Petitioners (vide Sl.Nos. 1, 3 and...
Tag this Judgment!Ceeta Industries, the Rep. by Its Vice-president Vs. the State of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1485; (2007)8VST638(Karn)
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. The petitioner has called in question the Order passed by the second respondent dated 29.1.2004 (Annexure-H) whereby his application seeking waiver of tax as per Kara Samadhana Scheme was rejected.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows;Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture, sale and export of Granite tiles. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (for short, KST, CST & KTEG Act respectively) and is borne on the file of the second respondent.3. The petitioner had filed the Annual Returns in Form No. 5 declaring Nil turnover for the Assessment Years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 under of the KTEG Act. The second respondent rejected the said returns and proposed to assess the petitioner in accordance with Section 5(4) of the K.T.E.G. Act. Petitioner filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Totappa Rachappa Ingalahalli Vs. Gangadharayya Neelakanthayya Sirahatt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant248; 2005(3)KarLJ124
ORDERS.B. Majage, J. 1. Petitioner in C.R.P. No. 4832 of 2001, who is decree-holder in Execution Case No. 45 of 1999 before the Court of Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Gadag, has challenged the Order dated 29-10-2001 by which the execution has been held as not maintainable to the extent of half of the suit property of O.S. No. 81 of 1971. The petitioners in C.R.P. No. 541 of 2002, who are judgment-debtors 5 and 6 in the said execution, have challenged that part of the order, by which execution is held maintainable to the extent of remaining half of the suit property of O.S. No. 81 of 1.971. Since both petitions arise out of same order, they are taken together for consideration. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as shown in the impugned Order i.e., as decree-holder judgment-debtors 5 and 6. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to these petitions, are: There was a sale agreement on 26-5-1971 between the decree-holder and one Smt. Kotravva in respect of land S...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Devel ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2987; 2005(2)KarLJ445
1. This appeal is by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Dharwad and the KIADB, appellants 1 and 2 respectively challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAC No. 41 of 1993, dated 20-3-2002.2. The entire grievance of the appellant is confined only to the question relating to award of additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of Preliminary Notification i.e., 3-3-1975 to the date of passing of the award i.e., 18-3-1992.3. In view of the narrow compass in which the matter lies, we do not consider it necessary to go into the details of the factual matrix of this case. However, essential facts sans unnecessary details required for disposal of this appeal can be set out as under.4. The Land in question was proposed for being acquired by way of Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The Final no...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Danappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC795; 2006ACJ2073; 2005(2)KarLJ488
S.B. Majage, J. 1. The appellant-Insurance Company, which was respondent 2 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner at Chitradurga in WCA. CR. No. 26 of 2000, has challenged the order dated 23-12-2002 since, according to it, the respondent 1-claimant was not working as cleaner or cleaner-cum-conductor or conductor-cum-cleaner under the second respondent and the compensation awarded is not proper.2. Facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are: The second respondent is the owner of bus bearing No. KA 16/4009, in which passengers are carried on hire. According to the claimant, he was employed by the second respondent as conductor-cum-cleaner on the said vehicle. He was being paid Rs. 60/- per day besides bhatta for working as conductor, and Rs. 40/- per day for working as cleaner. When he was working as conductor in that bus on 19-1-2000, it met with an accident near P.D. Kote Cross due to its rash and negligent driving and in that, he sustained injuries during the course of his e...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rajamma and anr. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ81
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Writ Petition No. 32532 of 2003 is filed praying to quash the impugned Order passed by R-l in No. LRF 349/74-75, dated 28-4-2003 (Annexure-K).2. Husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner Chikkannaiah was a tenant in respect of agricultural lands comprised in Sy. No. 121/3 situated at Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk to an extent of 01 acre 10 guntas acres since 1968-69. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, petitioner's father filed his application in Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in his favour as required under Section 48-A of the Act. The said land belonged to one Merit Haji Mohammed Ismail Sab. Certain dispute arose in the family of said Merit Haji Mohammed Ismail Sab and one Sri Shankar Ramakrishna was appointed as receiver in the year 1970 and thereafter in 1973, the respondents claim that they were appointed as receivers in respect of certain properties of Merit Haji Mohammed Ismail Sab. An...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »