Karnataka Court March 2005 Judgments

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by Its Managing Direc ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR1605

ORDERGopala Gowda, J.1. (i) In these batch of Writ Petitions, the prayer in W.P. Nos. 33120-21 & 33237-29, 48429-38, 46814, 46815, 46816, 46817, 49936, 49937 and 51804/2003 filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSTRC)/North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'NWKRTC' in short) is to quash the Contract Carriage Permits granted to private operators, some of them are also contesting respondents in these petitions. The contentions urged in these petitions, objections filed by both State and permit holder respondents and other allied matters pertaining to these Writ Petitions are dealt with in paragraph 4 of this order.ii) In W.P.Nos. 30657-60 and 52160-61/2003 filed by private operators/permit holders of the vehicles, the prayer is to direct the State respondents not to enforce the terms, conditions and instructions issued in the Circular No. STA.6/PR-02/2003-04 dated 5.4.2003 issued by the Chairman, Karnataka State Transport Authority (here...

B.C. Sampathkumar Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant324; ILR2005KAR1673

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur has granted authorization in favour of the petitioner to run a fair price depot at Bellavi, Tumkur Taluk. Based on the representation of certain villages the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur as per Annexure-C dated 10.9.1999 directed the Tahsildar, Tumkur Taluk to make alternate arrangements as per the request made by the villages by transferring 211 cards from the petitioner's shop to V.S.S.S.N. Bellavi. Based on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, the Tahsildar, Tumkur as per his order dated 16.9.2000 has assigned all the cards of the petitioner to the V.S.S.S.N. Bellavi. Challenging the said order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar the present petition is filed.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.3. Short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner or Tahsildar have power to assign all...

N.P. Nagaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Officer-in-charge of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)926; III(2005)BC551; [2006]129CompCas474(Kar); ILR2005KAR1716; 2005(3)KarLJ323

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC., the entire proceedings and the F.I.R. in Crime No. 20/2002 registered by Vijayapura Police under Section 420 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner have been challenged.2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of grapes, having been a permanent resident of Chickaballapura Town. He had business dealings with second respondent in respect of grapes purchased from the latter, amounting to Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioner had issued a cheque in favour of the second respondent dated 29.9.2001. When the second respondent presented the cheque at State Bank of Mysore, Madhavanagar Branch, Bangalore, he was informed that there was no amount in the account of the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent filed a complaint before Vijayapura Police and they registered a case in Crime No. 20/2002 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. The police, after registering the case as above mentioned, proceeded t...

Yamanavva and anr. Vs. Chandrawwa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR2329

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge, Bijapur, in RA. No. 84/1988 dated 25.6.1993 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Prl. Munsiff, Bijapur, in O.S. 181/81 dated 16.8.1988.2. The material facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. 181/81 seeking for a declaration that plaintiff has half share in the suit properties and for partition of his share by metes and bounds and to direct defendants to put plaintiff in possession of the said share and for mesne profits and costs. The suit schedule property comprises of land bearing Sy. No. 4 measuring 15 acres 37 guntas situate at Babalad village in Bijapur Taluk and a house as per the description given in para-2 of the plaint situated in Babalad village in Bijapur District.3. It is averred that the suit schedule property was the Wali...

The Himalaya Drug Company Vs. Taj Ahmed

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR248]; ILR2005KAR3525; 2005(3)KarLJ589; (2005)IIILLJ504Kant

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. By the impugned award dated 10-8-2004 passed in Reference No. 50 of 1999, the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore accepted the reference and directed the management of M/s. Himalaya Drug Company ('management' for short) to reinstate the workman into service to his original post with continuity of service but without any back wages.2. The case of the workman-respondent herein is that he was appointed as a Mazdoor by the management on 18-10-1994 on daily wages of Rs. 24/- per day; that he continued to work till 22-12-1995 on which date, he was illegally removed from his service without due compliance of law which is nothing but exploitation and unfair labour practice. According to him he has worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.3. On the other hand, it is the case of the management that the workman was engaged as Mazdoor on a temporary basis initially for the period between 18-10-1994 and 28-12-1994; was continued from time to time that...

Umesh Veerabhadrappa Moolimani Vs. Vijay Shivanand Tubachi and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2005)ACC815; [2005(106)FLR1181]; ILR2005KAR3102; 2006(3)KarLJ633

Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded compensation and also directed penalty of 30% of the compensation amount to be payable by the owner of the vehicle. The para 36 of the judgment deals with the liability of the penalty imposed on the appellant-owner. The Commissioner observes that the appellant-owner is a lawyer and conscious of the liability under Workmen Compensation Act yet did not deposit the compensation as per the Workmen Compensation Act, therefore, slapped penalty of 30% of the compensation amount.2. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that immediately after the accident. The appellant has paid Rs. 20,000/-to the claimant to meet the immediate needs and that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to avoid liability.3. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration:Whether the finding of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner that the employer being a lawyer has defaulted to deposit the amount as ...

Gangothri Yuvaka Sangha Vs. Yarab Youth Association and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(4)KarLJ590

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J. 1. Petitioner and respondent 1 are associations registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Pursuant to a notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, petitioner, 1st respondent along with others filed applications for grant of authorisation to run a fair price depot at Kuruvel Village, Tumkur Taluk. After considering all the applications, the Deputy Commissioner granted authorisation in favour of the petitioner-association. Aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner-association the first respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore contending that the Secretary of the petitioner-association was earlier distributing kerosene under the public distribution system and his licence was cancelled due to some irregularities in distributing kerosene.2. According to the 1st respondent the Secretary has studied upto B.A. Degree and the Secretary of the petitioner-association completed only 7th ...

Rati Alias Varija Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5219

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question, the orders dated 24.12.1976(Annexures 'C and 'D' respectively) passed by the Land Tribunal, Karkala, whereby, the petitioner's application seeking grant of occupancy right was rejected and the application of the 3rd respondent was allowed.2. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are the children of late Sri. Parameshwara Shervegara. Parameshwara Shervegara was the tenant of the lands in question. The 4th respondent purchased the said lands from its previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1959. Parameshwara Shervegara had taken the lands from the 4th respondent on lease on 04.10.1959. Parameshwara Shervegara died prior to 01.03.1974. The petitioner married 4th respondent, the owner of the properties in question.3. After coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by Act 1/1974, the petitioner filed an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy right in resp...

Venkataramu Vs. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corp ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondents K.S.R.T.C., had filed M.F.A. No. 1931 of 2000 assailing the compensation granted as excessive. The petitioner-appellant herein is not notified. this Court dismissed the appeal in limine holding that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. The petitioner has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. Mr. D. Vijayakumar, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment in M.F.A. No. 1931 of 2000 and relied on the decision of this Court in M.F.A. No. 2493 of 2001.3. The facts in the cited case M.F.A. No. 2493 of 2001 disclose that the injured petitioner had filed an appeal in M.F.A. No. 2001 of 2001. seeking enhancement. The respondents had also filed a cross-appeal seeking reduction of the compensation. M.F.A. No. 2001 of 2001 seeking enhancement is dismissed in limine without notice to respondents. While considering the appeal of the respondents for red...

Smt. Muthubai Vs. Manjula Makkala Kendra Kannada Senior Primary School ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR1512; 2005(3)KarLJ158

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. A suspended teacher is before this Court challenging the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-N and T dated 16.08.2003 and 21.02.2005 respectively.2. Few facts which are essential for the disposal of this case can be set out as under:The petitioner who was working as a teacher in the 1st respondent - School was kept under suspension pending enquiry by an order dated 08.01.2002 vide Annexure-L. The said order was challenged before the 3rd respondent invoking Sections 131 and 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act'). The 3rd respondent by order dated 16.08.2003 dismissed the appeal holding that the dispute pertains to one filed by the petitioner against the Management challenging the order of suspension and hence the appropriate Authority to decide the dispute was the Educational Appellate Tribunal.3. The petitioner aggrieved by this order presented a review petition before the 3rd respondent contending inter alia that there was no...