Karnataka Court April 2005 Judgments
Dr. T. Prathap and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Principal Secret ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant386; ILR2005KAR2682; 2005(4)KarLJ279
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioners in these cases have sought for a declaration that the service weightage of 4 marks for every completed one year of service on contract basis granted by the Government Order bearing No. HFW 470 MPS 2004, dated 18-1-2005 (Annexure-'B' to the writ petitions) by the Clause reading 'in case of service rendered as contract Doctors, the service weightage so admissible shall be 4 marks for every completed one year of service' is illegal and unconstitutional.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioners are aspirants for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental and Diploma Courses for the academic year 2005-2006. They are in-service candidates prescribed under the Rules Governing Admission. They have taken the Entrance Test as in-service candidates. The 1st Petitioner though a Medical Officer in the services of the Government of Karnataka has taken the test as an open category candidate since he does not fall within the definition ...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar General Vs. Sri Gundu Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3463; ILR2005KAR1990; 2005(4)KarLJ593
ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. This contempt proceedings are initiated by this Court on its own motion. The petition is presented under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The subject matter of the complaint is that the accused have fabricated an interim order alleged to have been issued by this Court in W.A.No. 6282/2002 and produced the same in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Belthangadi.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Accused No. 1 had a small piece of agricultural land for which a person claiming himself to be a tenant sought for occupancy rights. The accused filed W.P.No. 40893/2002 (LR) challenging the order dated 15-7-97 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belthangadi. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 13-11-2002. That order was challenged in W.A.No. 6282/2002. The appeal papers were returned on 22-1-2003 to the Advocate for the Appellant (the Accused No. 1 herein) for ...
Tag this Judgment!Rachel Sukumari Vs. Samuel Rajashekar Mathias and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2260; 2005(5)KarLJ528
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant had challenged the order passed by the Trial Court, granting the Letter of Administration in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri B.V. Krishna on the one side and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, Sri K.M. Nataraj on the other, I have, also gone through meticulously, the Trial Court, records.2a. The learned Counsel for the respondent No, 3 Sri S.K. Acharya had adopted the arguments of Sri K.M. Nataraj.3. It was vehemently argued by Sri B.V. Krishna that the Trial Court did not pass a just judgment in the case, based on material evidence of record. It was also argued by him that the Trial Court did not appreciate the suspicious circumstances in the execution of Ex.P.2-Will. According to Sri Krishna, the following are the suspicious circumstances.(i) That the disputed will had been placed before the Court for the first time by the respondent-plaintiff after 2...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Paper Mills Sugar Mills Factory Labourer's Association Vs. the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR878]; ILR2005KAR2594; 2005(4)KarLJ464
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before me challenging annexure-F, the settlement signed and executed by R-2 and 3 on 7-3-2005. Petitioner is the President of the Mysore Paper Mill Sugar Mills Factory Labourer's Association Union. Petitioner's union and one another union Mysore Paper Mill Employees Labour Union submitted their charter of demand separately to the management. The management without following the procedure and calling the petitioner for deliberations, unilaterally accepted the charter of demand submitted by the other union, and the charter of demand submitted by the petitioner's union was neither accepted nor rejected by the management. Thereafter notice was issued by the office of the third respondent Commissioner calling upon the petitioner's association to negotiate for reconciliation in the matter of wage settlement. Petitioner represented by its President and office bearers appeared before the third respondent and filed detailed statement in the matter. Without ...
Tag this Judgment!Sou. Shevanta Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC770; 2006ACJ2677; ILR2005KAR2867
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. An unfortunate lady underwent an operation of laparoscopic which has resulted in serious malady is in appeal. Her suit for claiming damages for medical negligence has been dismissed by the trial court on the ground that she is unable to attribute the required degree of negligence to defendant-4, namely, the doctor who performed the operation.2. Facts that are necessary to appreciate the controversy in question can be stated briefly as under:3. During the course of the judgment the appellant would be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents as the defendants.4. The plaintiff was married in the year 1981. Her husband is a tailor by profession. She has two daughters and a son. After she delivered the last issue i.e., the daughter, she was advised to undergo laparoscopic sterilization by the medical officer incharge of the Primary Health Centre at Uchagaon. Since there was paucity of facilities for performing laperoscopic sterilisation operation in the Primary ...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Shiva Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3000; ILR2005KAR4780; 2005(4)KarLJ22
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the appointment of the second respondent as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C. No. 239 of 2004 connected with S.C. No. 214 of 2004 in Crime No. 4 of 2003 registered by the Gownapalli Police, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District.2. The case of the petitioner is he is arrayed as the first accused and he is facing trial in S.C. No. 239 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled. Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He contends that earlier in the said case the State was represented by a Public Prosecutor attached to the Department of Prosecution, Government of Karnataka. When the second respondent entered his appearance in the case he made enquiry and came to know that by the impugned order he is appointed as a Special Public Prose...
Tag this Judgment!O.J.S.C. Corporation Transstroy Vs. Government of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant351; 2005(4)KarLJ292
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner is a Corporation registered under the laws in Russia and carrying on infrastructural construction activities. The first and second respondents floated a tender-national competitive bidding for rehabilitation of the State Highways. Petitioner submitted his bid on 9-4-2003 for execution of work of rehabilitation of road from Devi Nagar to Sindhanur falling within Bellary and Raichur Districts. On 30-5-2003 petitioner's bid was accepted and was awarded contract known as contract M-11 for a price of Rs. 20,54,73,806.41. The petitioner executed the necessary agreement and furnished Bank guarantees towards performance. Respondents called upon the petitioner to commence the work from 1st of August, 2003. The period of contract was 16 months from the date of commencement of the work.2. The case of the petitioner is after commencing the work they found that the entire road link was in a very bad condition and sought for review of the approvals. They contend a...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Transport Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant325; 2005(4)KarLJ57
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the order of dismissal, dated 13-12-2004 in Anand Transport, Mylapore, Chennai v. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore and Ors. 2005(1) Kar. L.J. 287 : ILR 2005 Kar. 595 : AIR 2005 Kant. 183, on merits.2. The brief facts as may be relevant for consideration of the present appeal are as follows.--The first respondent-Karnataka Power Corporation Limited ('KPCL' for short), a wholly owned Government of Karnataka undertaking, is engaged in power generation. The said respondent has a Thermal Power Station at Raichur. The raw material used in the generation of electricity in the said station is coal. KPCL sources the coal from several collieries including M/s. Mahanadi Coal Fields, Talcher, Orissa. Having regard to the huge quantity and the critical requirement of continuous and timely supply of the coal required by KPCL, for the functioning of the power station, the choice of the entity which is engaged to supply the sa...
Tag this Judgment!H. Shivappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KarLJ328
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In all these petitions, wherein mainly persons elected as Councilors to various City Municipal Councils in the State figure as petitioners, the question that is involved is as to whether the Government Notification No. UDD 51 MLR 2004 (P-1), dated 1-9-2004 issued by the first respondent-State for the purposes of Section 42(2-A) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') providing for reservation of the posts of 'President' and 'Vice-President' in various City Municipal Councils; is in conformity with the very provisions, namely, Section 42(2-A) of the Act and if not as to whether any intervention is called for.2. While it is the assertion of some of the petitioners that the reservations as provided in terms of Notification dated 1-9-2004 bristles with various anomalies, discrepancies, virtually flouting the very provisions; that while in respect of some of the Councils, the reservation had been provided in excess, in the sense that,...
Tag this Judgment!Sharadamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3710; 2005(4)KarLJ481
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These batches of writ petitions are filed by the owners of agricultural and/or converted lands, house sites, residential/farm houses, companies and builders and others questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the acquisition of vast extent of lands for a development scheme called ARKAVATHI LAYOUT. The main features of the layout, as mentioned in the report of the Engineering Department of the BDA, are:(a) Total extent of land required : 2750 acres(b) Proposed residential sites : 28600(c) Civic Amenity sites : 50(d) Commercial sites : 150(e) Total estimation : Rs. 933.47 Crores(f) Total amount received : Rs. 981.36 Crores(g) Saving : Rs. 47.89 Crores(h) No. of villages covered : 16(i) No. of applicants : 2,32,000The details of various dimensions of the residential sites, the extent of land used for various purposes such as residential sites, park and play grounds, civic amenities, roads etc., the amount that would be realised from the sites, the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »