Karnataka Court January 2006 Judgments

Vijay Dev S.V. Vs. Government of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ154

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent-Government of Karnataka, dated 9-2-2004 as per Annexure-F in Revision Petition No. CMW 33 CAP 98 allowing the revision petition and setting aside the proceedings including the auction sale in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22453 of 2004 and directing the bank-the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17054 of 2004 to consider the claim of the fifth respondent and settled dues to him as per law within two months from the date of the order.2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Counsels appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and respondent 8 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 5 to 7 and the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17054 of 2004 and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 in the said ...

H.G. Sheela Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ24

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. By consent of the learned Counsels for the parties these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order as the lands involved are same and common questions of fact and law are involved.2. By a Notification dated 27-1-2004 issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), produced as Annexure-H in W.P. No. 4148 of 2005 and Annexure-A in W.P. No. 1393 of 2005, the State Government declared the following lands of Mahadevapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk as 'Industrial Area'.-SI. Nos. Sy. Nos. Extent01. 110 03-1502. 112 03-3803. 113:1 00-0704. 113:2 00-0705. 113:3 01-02SI. Nos. Sy. Nos. Extent06. 113:4 00-2307. 114 01-2508. 115 01-3509. 116 01-1410. 126 01-2011. 127 00-20Pursuant to such declaration, Notification dated 4-12-2004, produced as Annexure-B in W.P. No. 4148 of 2005 and Annexure-C in W.P. No. 1393 of 2005, was issued under Section 28(4)...

H.M. Mohan Kumar and ors. Vs. Karnataka Slum Clearance Board and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ90

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Four employees of the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'), who are presently working as Assistant Executive Engineers are before this Court challenging the order dated 29-9-2004 issued by the 2nd respondent appointing the 3rd respondent as Executive Engineer of the Board on deputation basis. They have also sought for quashing the order dated 16-3-2005 passed by the 5th respondent directing absorption of the services of the 3rd respondent under the Board.2. Petitioner 1 has joined the services of the Board as Assistant Engineer on 1-8-1989. The other three petitioners claim to have joined the services as Assistant Engineers on 1-4-1992. The conditions of service of the Officers and servants of the Board are governed by the Rules framed by the State in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 38 and 71 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act'). The said rules, known as the Karn...

Sannanaika Alias Sannaiah Vs. M.S. Prakash and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1836; ILR2006KAR1443; 2006(2)KarLJ237

1. The appellant was examined as P.W. 29 before the Trial Court and aggrieved by the acquittal of accused in S.C. No. 249 of 2003, this appeal is by him under Section 378(4) of the Cr. P.C.2. The office has raised the objection to the effect that the appellant has to satisfy as to how the appeal is maintainable in view Section 378(4) of the Cr. P.C.3. Section 378(4) of the Cr. P.C. reads as follows.-(1) ...(2) ...(3) ...(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.4. A plain reading of the above section makes it clear that the only person, who is entitled to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal under the said section, is the complainant in any case 'instituted upon complaint'. Although the Code does not contain any definition of the words...

The General Manager, Wheel and Axle Plant Vs. N. Ramachandra Reddy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR981]; 2006(2)KarLJ379

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. By the order dated 18-10-2004, the Industrial Tribunal has held that domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is not fair and proper. By the order dated 25-7-2005, the Industrial Tribunal has rejected the application LA. No. I filed by the employer to lead evidence. Subsequently by the impugned award dated 13-9-2005, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed the management to reinstate the workman. All the three aforesaid orders are called in question in this writ petition.2. The records disclose that based on proved charges of unauthorised absenteeism for certain period, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from service. The workman raised a dispute. The Central Government by exercising powers conferred under Section 10(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore for adjudication. The Labour Court, as aforesaid, by the order dated 18th Oc...

Devaki Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ113

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the common order dated 7-9-1989 in Appeal No. DAAA:AP: 318/1986 on the file of the District Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi ('Appellate Authority' for short) confirming the order dated 13-4-1981 in proceeding No. LRM:SR:4949 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi, has presented this revision petition.2. The petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 claiming to be the rival tenants in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 26/1 measuring 1 acre; Sy. No. 28/2 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situate at Adanalli Village, Sirsi Taluk, Uttar Kannada District, have filed their applications in Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights in their favour. The applications filed by the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Sirsi on 13th April, 1981. The Land Tribunal, Sirsi has registered the occupancy rights in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 and rejected the cla...

Ranoji Rao Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Principal Secretary and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1151; 2006(2)KarLJ299

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. By the impugned order dated 30.10.2003 at Annexure-B, the application filed by the Petitioner Under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act ('Act' for short) is dismissed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the same is filed beyond 90 days from the date of award dated 5.9.2001 passed in LAC. Nos. 4/91, 1.3/91, 14/91, 30/91.2. L.A.C. Nos. 4/91, 13/91, 14/91, 30/91 were disposed of by the Jurisdictional Civil Court and the award was passed in favour of the claimants therein on 5.9.2001. After obtaining the certified copy of the award passed in the said L.A.C., cases, the petitioner herein who was similarly placed as that of the claimants in the aforesaid L.A.C. cases filed application Under Section 28-A of the Act on 26.6.2002 claiming similar compensation as ordered in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Cases. It is not in dispute that said application is filed by the petitioner after a lapse of 83 days of the time of limitation prescribed under the pro...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. United Telecom Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, Tribunal), is a statutory tribunal which normally functions as a second appellate authority under the provisions of Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The number of appeals that come up before such a Tribunal are quite numerous arising under the said three enactments and the statutory requirement to maintain an appeal before the tribunal can be found in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 and the corresponding provisions under the other two enactments.2. This is a provision where under the legislature has made it a norm that the amount disputed in the appeal should be deposited pending disposal of the appeal and the first proviso to this section reduces the rigor of such insistence by allowing the discretion in favour of the Tribunal to dispense with the deposit to any ex...

Somayya and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka Reptd. by Its Secretary to the ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the legal representatives of late Kollagonda challenging the order dated 29.7.2000 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bhatkal whereby the second respondent rejected the Form No. 7 filed by deceased Kollagonda to the remaining extent of 27 Guntas of land out of Survey No. 343/1 situate at Koppa village, Bhatkal Taluk. Therefore, assailing the said order he has come up with this writ petition only on the ground that the impugned order is contrary to law and without holding a proper enquiry, rejected the application saying that application filed under Section 77A is not maintainable and the Tribunal is not justified in passing a cyclostyled order which is highly illegal and arbitrary and the Tribunal has not recorded the statement of the parties concerned. Without proper enquiry, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the L. RS. of late Kollagonda which is illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice and...

B. Lakshminarayan Vs. the Corporation of City of Bangalore and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant135; 2006(2)KarLJ104

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The appeal is filed against that portion of the common order allowing I.A. No. IV filed by respondent, who was the defendant before the Trial Court.2. Sri H.S. Dwarakanath, appearing for the appellant, would contend that the appellant is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The plaintiff claims that he has put up structures over the suit land. The defendants sought to interfere with his possession and sought to demolish the structures and it is in this circumstances that the suit was filed along with I.A. No. II seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and I.A. No. III restraining them from demolishing the structures in the suit property. Respondent 2, who claimed as an agreement holder, to purchase a portion of the suit property, had, in turn, filed an application numbered as I.A. No. IV seeking a restraint against the appellant from putting up construction. The Trial Court granted both the applications in f...