Karnataka Court July 2005 Judgments
Malini V. Pai Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ462
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Though this matter is listed in orders list, with the consent of learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents, the same is taken up for hearing and is disposed of as follows:2. Petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 28th September, 2004, on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 171 of 2002 and the order dated 28th November, 2001 in Dispute No. 436 of 2001-02 on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure-A and F respectively, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to dispose of the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to engage the services of an Advocate.3. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that, petitioner is the widow of late Sri K. Vasudev Pai, who died in the year 1992. It is her strong case that, she is neither a member of third respondent-Abhyudaya Credit Co-operative Soci...
Tag this Judgment!Kamadhenu Cables and anr. Vs. Mahanthara Mutt Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4730; 2006(5)KarLJ464
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In both these Regular First Appeals the plaintiff is common in the Trial Court and the appellants were the defendants in each suit respectively. The suits filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendants were decreed. Aggrieved by the same the defendants have filed these two appeals.2. It is the case of the defendants that plaintiff has no locus standi either to issue quit notice to terminate the tenancy or to institute the suits against the defendants for ejectment and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule premises. It is further contended by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. V. Tarakaram, that since there is no resolution passed by the plaintiff trust for institution of suits against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule premises, the suits are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in law Mr. V. Tarakaram, learned Senior Counsel for the Defendants/Appellants pointing-out the recitals of Ex. P-1 contends that it is not a Trust Deed. In suppo...
Tag this Judgment!Kariyanna J.M. (Decd.), Rep. by Lrs Vs. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., Rep. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1057]; (2005)IIILLJ814Kant
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner-workman has called in question the award dated June 5, 2002 in I.D. No. 63/1992 passed by the Labour Court at Bangalore.2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased workman-J.M. Kariyannna. The deceased workman was appointed in the establishment of respondent on July 4, 1960. On February 29, 1980, the respondent served a charge sheet on the workman stating that he remained unauthorisedly absent from January 1979 to February 1980. The workman submitted his reply denying the charge against him and contended that on account of his daughter's marriage, his mother's illness and in addition to that, he also suffered illness and therefore, he was forced to remain absent from duty. Subsequently, a domestic enquiry was held and the disciplinary authority by accepting the findings of the domestic enquiry passed an order on July 13, 1981 dismissing the workman from service. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Prakash Shankar Gurav and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ747; ILR2006KAR1036
Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. The present appeal is by the Insurance company seeking to raise the following questions of law:a) Whether the Commissioner was justified in ignoring his quasi-judicial functions while not considering the evidence placed on record and making the appellant liable to satisfy the award?b) Whether the Commissioner was justified in entertaining the claim petition without the relationship of workman and employer being established between the respondents?c) Whether the Commissioner was justified in entertaining the claim petition without production of the wound certificate from the Government Hospital where the first respondent claimed to have undergone treatment and in holding that he has suffered permanent disability on the basis of manipulated medical evidence?d) When the terms of policy and Section 147 of the M.V. Act does not require a coverage of a cleaner in the LMV, whether the Commissioner was justified in making the appellant/insurer liable ignoring Rule 100 of...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prakash Shankar Gaurav and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC680; [2006(109)FLR328]
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The present appeal is by the Insurance Company seeking to raise the following questions of law:(a) Whether the Commissioner was justified in ignoring his quasi-judicial functions while not considering the evidence placed on record and making the appellant liable to satisfy the award?(b) Whether Commissioner was justified in entertaining the claim petition without the relationship of workman and employer being established between the respondents?(c) Whether the Commissioner was justified in entertaining the claim petition without production of wound certificate from Government Hospital where respondent No. 1 claimed to have undergone treatment and in holding that he has suffered permanent disability on the basis of manipulated medical evidence?(d) When the terms of the policy and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not require a coverage of a cleaner in the L.M.V., whether the Commissioner was justified in making the appellant insurer liable ignoring Rule 10...
Tag this Judgment!Jayashree Rajappa Terdal and anr. Vs. the Registrar, Karnataka Univers ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4242; 2005(6)KarLJ12
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The two un-successful candidates who have not been selected for the post of peon/watchman under the Karnataka University which is arrayed as party respondent No. 1 being represented by the Registrar, are before this Court challenging the Select List. They have sought for a declaration that the action of respondent No. 1-University in calling for a written test and for an interview while making appointment to the post of peon/watchman and in selecting respondents 3 to 21 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and for a further declaration that the said action is contrary to the Special Recruitment Rules, 2001.2. The facts that are relevant for the purpose of examining the grievances of the petitioners can be set out. The 1st respondent-University issued a notification on 5.10.2002 calling for applications to fill up the back log vacancies existing in the University. Annexure-A is the said notification issued on 5.10.2002. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Vs. the Management of Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4449
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent company in the year 1980 as a stipendary trainee. After the completion of the training he was continued as a clerk and was put on probation for a period of one year. After probation he was confirmed in the permanent post. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated on the ground of his unauthorized absence in spite of a call notice being given to him to report to duty. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court by filing an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After contest the Labour Court set aside the order of termination, directed reinstatement and granted 50% back wages. Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the respondents preferred a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No. 24375/1999. This Court observed as under: -'2... Even if the misconduct of unauthorised absence for the said period of less than two months is...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Narayana Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, H.R.P.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ506
N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal by claimant-appellant is directed against the judgment and award dated 11th November, 2002 in L.A.C. No. 1 of 1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holenarasipura, on the ground that, the enhancement of market value made by Reference Court is inadequate.2. The land bearing Sy. No. 1/82 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas situate at Gobballi Forest, Konanur Hobli, Arkalgud Taluk has been notified and acquired by Government vide its preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 15th October, 1998 for the purpose of 'formation of Harangi Channel'. The Land Acquisition Officer, taking all relevant factors into consideration and relying upon sales statistics, has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 27,500/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant-claimant herein filed the application for reference under Section 18(1) of the La...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Hukkeri and ors. Vs. S.R. Vastrad and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3882; 2006(2)KarLJ528
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions as common question of law is involved they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 6717 of 1997 Writ Petition Nos. 32623 of 1997; 3371 of 1998; 20189 of 1998; 22897 of 1998; 22898 of 1998; 22899 of 1998 ; 36040 of 1998; 22925 of 1999; 24945 of 1999; 37914 of 1999; 39020 of 1999; 45731 of 1999; 44802 of 1999; 13826 of 2000; 21040 of 2000; 28946 of 2000; 31466 of 2000; 33528 of 2000; 36407 of 2000 are all cooperative societies/banks registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 and are governed by the provisions of the said Act. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 18025 of 1997; 25812 of 1997; 18191 of 1998; 29650 of 1998; 30229 of 1998; 30562 of 1998; 2542 of 1999; 7112 of 1999; 13813 of 1999; 16780 of 1999; 22928 of 1999; 29657 of 1999; 32148 of 1999; 35275 of 1999; 36461 of 1999; 38729 of 1999; 113 of 2000; 6304 of 2000; 3997 of 2001; and 47510 of 2001 are all...
Tag this Judgment!T.L. Kumaraswamy Vs. Sri John Menezes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4104; 2005(6)KarLJ21
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The short question that arise for consideration in this revision is as to whether an eviction petition filed under Section 21(1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 corresponding to Section 27(2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 be dismissed as premature on the ground that after the purchase of the schedule property the petition was filed within a period of one year.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The landlord Sri T.L. Kumaraswamy initiated eviction proceedings under Section 21(1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 in respect of the schedule premises against the tenant Sri John Menezes on the ground that the premises is required for bonafide use and occupation. The respondent-tenant having entered appearance filed objections pleading that the eviction petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed under Section 70(2) (b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.3. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes recorded a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »