Karnataka Court May 2005 Judgments
Kallu Daniel Vs. G.D. Hemalatha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC264; ILR2005KAR2708; 2006(3)KarLJ132
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The present Appeal is filed against the order of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli, returning the petition of the appellant, seeking a decree of divorce filed under Section 12 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to present it before the proper Court.2. The respondent has been served, she remains unrepresented. The only question to be considered in this Appeal is;'Whether the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Hubli, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition seeking divorce under the Divorce Act, 1869?'The reasoning of the Court in returning the petition is two fold. Firstly, that the petition was filed under Section 12 of the Divorce Act, 1869, whereas it should have been filed under Section 10 of the Divorce Act and secondly, that the Act prescribed that a petition for divorce under Section 10 shall be presented before the District Court or the High Court and therefore, that Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.3. Firstly, the reasoning ...
Tag this Judgment!University of Agricultural Sciences Vs. T.D. Yogitha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2750; 2005(6)KarLJ241
Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal is University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'University').2. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 2nd November 2004, made in Writ Petition No. 54757/2003 by the learned single Judge.3. In the impugned order, the learned single Judge quashed the endorsement dated 30th October 2003, issued by the University, a copy of which was produced as Annexure-G to the writ petition, informing the respondent that she is not entitled for issue of marks card and degree certificate and decided to upheld the notification dated 12th April 2001 issued by the University cancelling the admission of the respondent and further directed the University to issue degree certificate of B.Sc. (Agriculture) to the respondent within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.4. Sri H.N. Shashidar, learned counsel appearing for Sri H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, for the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Anil M. Puthran and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3048; 2006(3)KarLJ136
ORDERGopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioners are the owners of 79 cents in Sy.No. 220/ICI of Narimogru village in Puttur Taluk. They have filed this writ petition to quash the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 29-1-1981 passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of the said land. It is their grievance that they were not made parties before the land Tribunal in Form 7. It is further contended that land is not tenanted and did not vest in the State Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The finding of the Tribunal that the land is tenanted, is erroneous and contrary to law. It is also stated that grant of occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent is contrary to the terms of grant of land in favour of the mother of the petitioners.2. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections denying the petition averments and praying for dismissal of writ petition solely on the ground of delay and lach...
Tag this Judgment!H.M.T. Limited Watch Factory I and Ii Vs. R.L. Prasad and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1176]; ILR2005KAR2978; 2006(3)KarLJ592
ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED BY AN AUTHORITY NOT HAVING JURISDICTION-LACK OF JURISDICTION-Whether can be cured by allowing an employer to adduce evidence to prove misconduct -HELD-When an order of dismissal is passed by an authority not competent to do so, such total lack of jurisdiction or power for passing such an order cannot be cured by allowing an employer to adduce evidence to prove misconduct which led to the dismissal of the workman and it is not permissible for the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court to substitute its decision for that of the competent authority to dismiss or not to dismiss the workman if the misconduct is proved.Appeal dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Jayalakshmi Wine Land and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3284
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the penalty levied under Section 12-B(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') for the assessment year 1992-1993 is liable to be waived in terms of Circular No. 3/1999-2000 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Facts which lie in a narrow compass may first be noticed.2. Respondent no. 1 is a dealer in liquor holding CL-1 licence on the basis of which it is carrying on its business. The business premises of this respondent were inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer on 30-03-1993 and it was found that the monthly tax which was required to be paid had not been deposited. Tax amount for the year 1992-1993 was paid on 02-12-1993. Since the tax had not been paid in time the Commissioner of commercial taxes levied a penalty of Rs. 5,44,023/- under Section 12-B(4) of the Act. This penalty is sought to be waived in terms of Circular No. 3/1999-2000.3. In his budget...
Tag this Judgment!Sharabai Alias Sharada and anr. Vs. P. Sahebkhan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ333
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The dependents of the deceased not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum vide its award dated 29-1-2005 in MVC No. 1853 of 1999 have preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). The deceased Bhupal Janawade, by name, died in an accident occurred on 26-6-1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle involved in the accident insured by the second respondent- Insurance Company. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident insured by the second respondent, and that finding is not assailed before us by the Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle in any independent appeal. Therefore, there is no necessity for us to review that finding.2. In this appeal, learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Gurushanth Pattedar Vs. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant377; ILR2005KAR2503; 2005(6)KarLJ270
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. The short question that arises for the consideration of this Full Bench is whether an order passed by a learned single Judge in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is appealable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and whether the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Limited v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1966 (7)KLJ 600 answering the aforesaid question in the affirmative lays down the correct law. When this appeal came up for hearing before two of us on 17.1.2005 the Bench was of the view that the judgment of this Court in Ritz Hotels case (supra) required reconsideration and the matter was referred to a Bench of five Judges. This is how the case has been placed before us.2. Since the question involved in the case is purely legal it is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. He has filed a suit for permane...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. Vs. P.A. Babu Jayaprakash
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR780]; ILR2005KAR2741; 2006(3)KarLJ374
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The Management of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd., (for short referred to as 'Company') which is a Karnataka Government undertaking, situated in Bangalore, has preferred this writ appeal, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge 07/01/2003 in W.P. No. 16736 of 1999. The respondent herein preferred the above writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the relieving order No. KSDL.DSN.175.C.98-99.145 dated 18.02.1999 passed by the General Manager of the Company which is marked as Annexure-E to the writ petition.2. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be noted briefly in the first instance and they are as follows:The petitioner was appointed as a Sales Supervisor by the Company on 19.08.1988 and his services were confirmed on the completion of the probation vide order dated 30.08.1990/01.09.1990. On 19.01.1999, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Regional Manager of the Company, which reads as follows: 'The targ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Sunitha and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3194; 2005(6)KarLJ410
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. Dr. K.S. Sunitha is the petitioner in WP No. 14437/2005 and Dr. A. Padmaja is the petitioner in WP No. 14438/2005. Both the petitioners are holders of MBBS Degree and they were appointed as Medical Officers by an order dated 25.7.1997 issued by the Government of Karnataka pursuant to selection made by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. They had joined the services of the State on 13.8.1997 and 14.8.1997 respectively. The petitioners participated in the Post-Graduate Entrance Test 2005 held on 6.2.2005. Dr. K.S. Sunitha secured 139 marks in the Entrance Test out of 200 marks while Dr. A. Padmaja secured 118 marks out of 200. Both of them appeared for the counselling on 21.4.2005. Dr. K.S. Sunitha was allotted Post-Graduate seat in MS. OBG though she wanted a seat in MD. Radiology. Dr. A. Padmaja secured a seat for the study of MD. Anesthesiology though her first choice was MS. OBG2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-authorities have made...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Suryanarayana Vs. the State of Karnataka Department of Urban Deve ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR137]; ILR2005KAR3625; 2006(2)KarLJ487
ORDERN.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. These are two writ petitions filed by Sri K.S. Suryanarayana the Ex-Municipal President of Kolar City Municipal Council. These have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation. The prayer made in writ petition No. 24217 of 2002 is for a direction to the State of Karnataka and the Director of Municipal Administration to implement the report dated 25.4.2001 submitted by the Lokayukta, Bangalore under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 indicting Sri S. Hanumanthappa respondent who was then posted as Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Bidar. In the other writ petition (W.P.No. 44930 of 2004) the prayer is for quashing the order dated 12.7.2004 transferring the said Sri S. Hanumanthappa as Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, Kolar. Since Sri Hanumanthappa respondent has been placed under suspension in pursuance to the interim order dated 28.3.2005 passed by this Court the prayers made in the two wri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »