Karnataka Court August 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Venkatesh Vs. T.M. Rama and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC294
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 698 of 1990 sustained head injury and three other simple injuries and the wound certificate is marked at Ext. P-3. The petitioner is not examined. But, however one of the co-passengers in the said tempo who is injured is examined and through him Ext. P-3 is marked. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is not examined.2. The provisions of Order 18 of Code of Civil Procedure and the rules of evidence does not insist that party should necessarily be examined to prove the case. The party is entitled to prove his case by examining any competent witness who has personal knowledge of the facts. In the instant case, the injured petitioner through whom Ext. P-3 is marked is a co-passenger and he had personal knowledge of the accident and injury sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner on his behalf and contents of Ext. P-3 substantially proves the case of the petitioner...
Radhakrishna Bhakta Vs. Subramanya Shastri and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR695]
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated March 3, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 45628/2001 whereby the case has been remitted back to the State Government to reconsider the issue.2. The appellant before us is Sri Radhakrishna Bhakta Mandali Trust which is administering Radhakrishna temple at Bangalore. Subramanya Shastry respondent No. 1 is the priest engaged in the temple who performs pooja for the devotees who visit the temple. It is alleged that on receipt of several complaints from the devotee the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated. He sought to raise an industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings were held which did not fructify. The State Government exercising its powers under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') declined to refer the dispute for adjudication observing that the temple run by the trust is not an industry within the meaning ...
Mrittika Sen Gupta Vs. the Chairman, Bangalore University and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4110
ORDERR. Gururajan,J.1. Petitioner a post graduate student is before me seeking for a direction to furnish answer scripts with Registration No. 02BMS and the pattern of allotment of marks for each question in the revalue paper in Microbial Technology III (theory) with paper code MBP-403 of MSc IV Semester conducted by the Bangalore University during the month of June,2004. Petitioner also wants other directions in the given circumstances.Petitioner after completing her B.Sc, for in the year 2002, pursued her studies in M.Sc, Micro Biology in PES college and successfully completed all the first three semesters in first class. She took her fourth semester in the month of June, 2004. Surprisingly, she found that the marks obtained by her Micro Biology was only 17 out of 80. She applied for challenge revaluation. She however approached the custodian of marks for clarification. He gave the information that the petitioner had actually obtained 59 marks in her first valuation and as per the ru...
Y. Abdulla Kunhi and anr. Vs. B. Ibrahim
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ332
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by the eviction petitioners in HRC proceedings No. 31 of 2004 before the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dakshina Kannada, who had instituted the eviction proceedings as against the respondent under Section 27(2)(a), (d), (i), (j) and (r) read with Section 37 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act') and who is now aggrieved by the order dated 5-10-2004 passed in Rent Revision No. 49 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.2. Under the impugned order, the learned Principal District Judge exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 46(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 has revised and set aside the order dated 16-9-2004 which had been passed by the HRC Court on I.A. No. II in the pending HRC case rejecting the application that had been filed by the tenant under Section 43 of the Act for stopping the proceedings before the HRC Court and referring the d...
Smt. N.S. Nagalakshmi Vs. Vidya Vardhaka Sangha and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ106
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Managing Committee of Vidya Vardhaka Sangha, the first respondent herein, initiated disciplinary proceedings against Smt. N.S. Nagalakshmi, the appellant herein, while she was serving as Principal of the V.V.S. Pre-University College for Women, situated in I Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore by issuing two charge memos dated 9-4-2004 and 1-7-2004.2. The validity of those charge memos was assailed by the appellant before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 46496 of 2004, on the grounds: (i) that the Managing Committee of the first respondent is not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act'); and (ii) that, even assuming but not admitting that the Managing Committee of the first respondent has power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her, the Managing Committee itself ought to have framed the charges against her and since the charges are framed by the Enqui...
Management of Oriental Transport Limited Vs. Mr. B.T. Ramakrishna and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR126]; ILR2005KAR5168; (2006)ILLJ564Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. As the facts are almost identical, common question of law is involved, in all these four writ petitions, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.2. Respondents in all these writ petitions are workmen employed by the petitioner/industrial establishment. The workers of the petitioner went on strike on 19.11.98. At the intervention of the authorities, a dispute regarding validity of strike was referred to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in I.D. No. 97/99, Accusing these respondents of having committed certain acts during the period of strike, they were served with charge sheet. Respondents gave a reply denying the charges. Not being satisfied with the said reply, departmental enquiry was initiated against these four workmen. Both parties adduced evidence. On consideration of the material on record, the enquiry officer held that the misconduct alleged against these respondents is proved and submitted a report to the discipl...
The Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore Central and anr. Vs. Tata In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC444; AIR2005Kant409; 2005(5)KarLJ590
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore Central and the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Division, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st July, 1999 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 21327 to 21330 of 1999 have preferred this writ appeal.2. The background facts leading to filing of this writ appeal require to be noted in the first instance and they are as follows:On K.T. Rajashekar is the registered owner of vehicles bearing registration Nos. KA 01/A 1852, KA 01/A 1853, KA 01/A 1891 and KA 01/A 1892. On 1-4-1999 K.T. Rajashekar entered into an agreement with the respondent-company with regard to the leasing of the aforementioned four vehicles and, in that agreement, the respondent (herein is referred to as a 'Lessee') On 3-4-1999 K.T. Rajashekar and the respondent herein made a joint application to the RTO, Bangalore Central, requesting the latter to record the lease agreement entered into between the parties in the R.C. Books. The...
The General Secretary, Karnataka Karya Niratha Pathrakarthara Sangha V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5414; 2005(6)KarLJ69; (2006)ILLJ513Kant
N. Kumar, J. 1. In this writ petition, common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore in ID Nos. 1 of 1995 and 6 and 7 of 1997 are challenged. The petitioner is a Trade Union of employees working in newspaper industry. They raised a dispute on behalf of one Sri N. Arjuna Deva, K.S. Ramachandra, B. Shankar, N.S. Gopal and P. Seetharam. A common grievance of all these workmen was that they were retired on reaching the age of 58 years long back and they ought to have been superannuated on completion of 60 years of age. The workman Sri Arjuna Deva has an additional grievance to the effect that he was denied promotion which he was otherwise legitimately entitled to on the ground that he was the office-bearer of the Union. Insofar as Sri K.S. Ramachandra is concerned, his additional grievance is that he has not been paid monetary benefits such as interim relief, educational allowance, promotion as proofreader etc., in terms of Memorandum of Settlement dated 21-4-1994. When the g...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramya Raghavan and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC890; 2006ACJ2347
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The deceased in M.V.C. No. 2758 of 2003 is one Seethalaxmi. Petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased. The deceased was travelling in the car belonging to her husband. The vehicle was driven by the licensed driver employed by her husband. In the course of the journey the vehicle met with an accident resulting in the death. The petitioner has filed petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,70,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the petition till payment. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the car to pay the compensation. The insurer is in appeal.3. The counsel for the appellant insured submits that the petitioner is a married daughter living at different place. Therefore, she cannot be deemed to be a dependant of the deceased. Nextly, it is argued that the petition under Section 163A is not maintainable.4. Clause 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act declares t...
V. Narayana Swamy and anr. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4020; 2005(5)KarLJ350
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The land at Sy.No. 94 of Nayanappasettypalya, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 2 acres 18 guntas were acquired for the benefit of the 2nd respondent-Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) vide Preliminary Notification dt. 30.11.1967 and Final Notification dt. 27.5.1970. These lands comprised of 1 acre 12 guntas of cultivable land and 1 acre 6 guntas of quarry land.2. The 1st respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 19.5.1975 fixing the market value at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per acre for 1 acre 12 guntas of cultivable land and Rs. 1,000/- per acre for 1 acre 6 guntas of Kharab land consisting of quarry. He awarded a sum of Rs. 1,17,958/- for the loss of business quarry and other things at 30% out of the estimated value of Rs. 3,93,194/- as proposed by the GEO, Mysore and as approved by the Director of Geology.3. Not content with the aforesaid award, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »