Karnataka Court July 2005 Judgments
Gajanana Engineers Vs. the Principal Secy. to Government Energy Depart ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3973
S.R. Nayak, J.1. Whether rejection of the tender of the appellant and acceptance of the tender of the contesting respondents 4 to 6 for awarding the contract of repairing the Distribution Transformers of the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board, which is now succeeded by the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (for short, BESCOM) is vitiated on account of any factor/circumstance, which would attract the wrath of the postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution of Inda, Viz., fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness, is the question that arises for decision in this writ appeal.2. The case of the appellant-petitioner is as follows: The appellant is a Small Scale Industrial Unit established in the year 1982 and has been carrying on business of repairing of Distribution Transformers. The Appellant has repaired more than 16,000 Distribution Transformers of 25 KVA, 63 KVA and 100 KVA capacity and has installed them in various locations both in urban and Rural BESCOM areas. The appell...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar Shetty and ors. Vs. Narayana Naika
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4494; 2005(5)KarLJ458
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. This petition is by the respondents in RA 52/90. The respondent herein is the appellant in the said R.A. and also the plaintiff in the suit. Suit in O.S. No. 121/88 is filed by the respondent in the trial Court seeking a relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners who are the defendants in respect of plaint 'B' schedule properties. After due contest, the said suit was decreed in part. The respondent aggrieved by the said judgment and decree has filed an appeal in RA 52/90 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Udupi. The bone of contention between the parties appears to be a certain strip of land where certain trees are situate of which the respondent claims to be the owner. During the pendency of the suit, a sketch Ex.P. 7 was marked. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that in the absence of the Commissioner's report, Ex.P. 7 cannot be looked into nor acted upon. This observation made b...
Tag this Judgment!Revanna Vs. Byregowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4534; 2006(2)KarLJ589
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. This second appeal is filed by the 2nd defendant who is the alienee of the suit properties being aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. Civil. Judge (Sr. Dvn), Tumkur in RA 68/1999 in confirming the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn), Tumkur in OS 5/1987. 2. Plaintiffs are the sons of one Ajjappa. The suit property is situate at Hikkal Village. It is stated that plaintiffs are entitled to share in the suit schedule property which was sold by 1st defendent in favour of 2nd defendant and that the property sold is not for legal necessities and as he was addicted to vices, he has alienated the suit property and that they are entitled to 3/4th share and that the 1st defendant had only 1/4th share in the property. As such, a suit was filed seeking for partition and separate possession and also for mesne profits. The suit was contested by the defendants contending that there were family and the property was earlier mortgaged to one Thimmakka...
Tag this Judgment!B.V.S. Anand and ors. Vs. V. Vajravelu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant399; 2005(6)KarLJ88
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal is by some of the defendants arrayed in the suit. The dispute has a considerable history and the facts of the case are briefly stated here for the purpose of considering this appeal.2. The suit is directed against defendants 1 and 2, namely, the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for brevity) and the Inspector General of Police, Task Force, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the IGP' for short). The plaintiffs are residents of Rajajinagar area and the other defendants are also said to be residents of that area. The plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, contend that there is a temple called 'Sri Shanidevara' situated at No. 591/A, 5th Main, 4th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, in a site measuring about 41' x 80' and the plaintiffs claim that they are residents of the area and have been offering prayers at the temple for several years. They contend that the temple is he...
Tag this Judgment!Motor Industries Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Dy. G.M. Vs. Regional Director, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1053]; (2005)IIILLJ800Kant
Anand Byrareddy, J.In the present appeal the following substantial questions of law are raised:i) Whether the ESI Corporation, Bangalore (Karanataka) has jurisdiction to claim contributions in respect of construction of property situated in Nallur Village, Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu, which is not a notified area under the ESI Act and beyond its coverage/applicability?ii) Whether the employees engaged by the second respondent Batra Developers for the purpose of construction of building for the purpose of Guest House of the appellant will fall under the definition of 'employee' under Section 9 of the ESI Act? andiii) Whether the judgment of the Lower Court is opposed to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Electricity Board v. Subash Chandra Bose reported in : (1992)ILLJ475SC .2. The facts briefly stated, as would be relevant for consideration of this appeal, are as follows:The appellant-company which has several factories as well as service centres throughout India, h...
Tag this Judgment!Malleshi and anr. Vs. Mallayya and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4437; 2006(2)KarLJ668
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.dn.) Aland in RA.Nos. 65/2003 and 66/2003 dated 5.2.2004 dismissing both the appeals and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Aland in O.S. Nos. 137/94 and 162/93.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto these appeals with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:O.S. No. 137/94 was filed for the relief of declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the land Rearing No. 58/3 measuring 38 guntas as per the description given in the schedule situated in Kawalga village and for cancellation of the decree passed in O.S. No. 155/93 dated 28.6.1994 by declaring that the suit decreed is null and void and for relief of perpetual injunction. The suit was resisted by the defendants.3. O.S. No. 162/93 was filed by the same plaintiff in O.S. No. 137/94 in respect of Sy. No. 58/3 measurin...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Suresh Vs. H.R. Ramegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5783; 2005(6)KarLJ133
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 20th May, 2005 bearing No. JRB/Appeal/04/2004-05 on the file of the fourth respondent only insofar as it relates to permitting the first respondent to contest in the election to the Committee of Management of the third respondent-Co-operative Society and the declaration of result of election that, the first respondent as having been duly elected to the Committee of Management of the third respondent on the file of the second respondent dated 3rd July, 2005 vide Annexure-C and D respectively, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner, has assailed the correctness of the order dated 21st July, 2005 in dispute No. 5 of 2005-06 on the file of the 5th respondent vide Annexure-E and sought for a declaration, to declare that, first respondent is not eligible to contest in the election to the Committee of Management for a period of four years from 5th July, 2004 in view of Section 30 of the Karnataka Co...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. N.K. Anupama Vs. Karnataka Medical Council Rep. by Its President a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5164
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has filed a divorce petition against the 3rd respondent in M.C. No. 1310/ 2002, which is now pending on the file of the II Additional Family Court at Bangalore. She has also filed a suit for defamation in O.S. No. 75/2003.2. It appears, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were asked to appear before the Conciliator for re-conciliation. The efforts made by the Conciliator to conciliate the matter failed. The 3rd respondent had filed a complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council on 11.12.2002 stating that the petitioner during the course of reconciliation had defamed the 3rd respondent contending that the 3rd respondent was a psychiatric patient which amounts to infamous professional conduct and therefore, requested the Karnataka Medical Council to initiate action against the petitioner as per the Karnataka Medical Council Act.3. Pursuant to Annexure-A1 the Karnataka Medical Council has issued a n...
Tag this Judgment!V. Bhujanga Shetty Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. by Revenue Secreta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR6059; 2006(5)KarLJ443
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.8.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kundapura, in LRT- 11-160-TRI-10929/80-81 granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 3-Shesha Shetty.2. The brief facts leading to this case are that the petitioner herein said to be purchaser of the various items of lands bearing Sy. No. 95 and 96/3 from the original owners Manjamma, Chikkamma and Paddamma, who are the daughters of Smt. Y. Nagamma Shedthi in the year 1972. Because of prohibition for registration of immovable properties, the said three persons registered three separate sale deeds on 06.9.1974. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3-Shesha Shetty who is none other than the father-in-law of the petitioner filed Form No. 7 on 21.12.1975 claiming occupancy rights of various items of the landed properties belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner's name has been shown in Column No. 1 of Form No. 7 at item ...
Tag this Judgment!Bansilal Vs. Dr. N.C. Nagaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ377
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In all these writ petitions, except in Writ Petition No. 37436 of 2003, petitioners are all tenants in the premises located in different places wherein the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as '1961 Act' for short) was applicable and the respective landlords had initiated proceedings under this Act for eviction of these tenants invoking the different provisos to Section 21(1) of the 1961 Act.2. The eviction petitions had been allowed even if not on all the grounds urged by the landlords, but at least on some of the grounds. The result was that the tenants were ordered to be evicted. Such tenants being aggrieved by the eviction orders, had preferred revision petitions under Section 50 of the 1961 Act to the respective revisional Courts having jurisdiction.3. In Writ Petition No. 37436 of 2003, the landlord also had preferred a revision petition, though had obtained an order of eviction at the hands of the Trial Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »