Karnataka Court February 2006 Judgments
K. Shankar Vs. the Director, Pre-university Education and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ364
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who was employed in a private aided institution and who, it appears, was aggrieved by certain action on the part of the management, who it appears, displaced the petitioner from being the head of the department of Chemistry, by allowing fourth respondent to function as such.2. Petitioner, it appears, had preferred an appeal purported to be under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for shorty 'the Act'), before the first respondent and the grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the matter being pending before the Appellate Authority for quite sometime, the appeal has not been disposed of and therefore has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.3. While Sri Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason for the Appellate Authority in not disposing of the appeal for a long time when the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. Pawan Vs. State by Hebbagodi Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2268; ILR2006KAR1570; 2006(3)KarLJ125
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J. 1. The revision petitioner is accused No. 3 in S.C. No. 327/2005 and 328/2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, registered for offences punishable under Section 395 of the Act. He was aged above 16 years on the date of each offence. Since he had already attained the age of Sixteen years then, he could not be considered as a Juvenile as per law then in force i.e., the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, (referred to in this order as 1986 Act for the sake of convenience). By the time charge sheet was filed, new Act i.e. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (referred to in this order as new Act No. 56/2000 for the sake of convenience) came into force. Under the new Act, the definition of the word Juvenile means a person, who has not completed eighteenth year of age. The short point that has therefore arisen is whether such an accused who was not a Juvenile under the 1986 Act can be considered as a Juvenile in conflic...
Tag this Judgment!H.G. Lokesh Vs. the Commissioner, Hassan Urban Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR669]; ILR2006KAR1612; 2006(3)KarLJ107
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the reference by the Labour Court, Chickmagalur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court for brevity) on several grounds.2. The facts are as follows:-The petitioner was appointed as a driver by the respondent on a temporary basis with effect from 10.5.1985 and his services were continued on the same status without interruption up to 31.5.1990. Without there being any justifying reasons, it is the petitioner's case, that he was terminated from service with effect from 1.6.1990. It is contended by him that he has put in a continuous service of four years and therefore the petitioner, satisfied the concept of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) and the act of the respondent was in violation Section 25-F of the Act in having illegally terminated his services without notice, and it amounts to illegal retrenchment under Section 2(00) of the Act. The p...
Tag this Judgment!The Workmen of Chikmagalur, District Central Cooperative Bank Limited ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ113
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The Workmen of Chikmagalur District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, represented by its General Secretary of Chikmagalur District Central Cooperative Bank Employees' Union and Ramachandra T.G. are before me challenging the orders dated 25.10.1999 issued by the Managing Director in terms of Annexure-A, the order dated 16.10.1999 issued by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies in terms of Annexure-B/ order dated 25.10.1999 issued by the State Government in terms of Annexure-C, letter dated 27.10.1999 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chikmagalur in terms of Annexure-D in the case on hand. A direction is sought against the respondents from interfering with the terms of settlement dated 19.5.1999. The Union also wants this Court to declare Rule 17 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules 1997 and Amendments to Sections 70(1), 70(2) and 70(3) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act as unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Janab Dada Khalandar Lathif Sab Hongal and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant225
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Mr. B. Veerappa, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No. 1.2. Even though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent it is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioners claim to be the members of the fourth respondent-Wakf Institution. It appears the said Wakf Institution had a byelaw upto the year 1980. Subsequently the second respondent - Board approved the new byelaws framed by the 4th respondent - Wakf Institution. The said order of the second respondent - Board was challenged by filing an appeal before the Wakf Tribunal by some members including the petitioners herein. The Tribunal by its order, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A, allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the second respondent - Board approving the new byelaws and thus restored the old byelaws approved by the second respondent in the year 1980. The 4th respondent has filed an application in the above appeal under O...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Hebbar S/O Late A.K. Hebbar Vs. Syndicate Bank, a Body Constitute ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: ILR2007(2)Kar2085; 2006(6)AIRKarR276(DB)
Cyriac Joseph C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 27-1-2006 in W.P.No. 42635/2004 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondent is the respondent in the writ petition.2. The appellant is an Officer in the Syndicate Bank-the respondent herein. As per Annexure-'A' dated 29-1-2004 the respondent formulated a Scheme known as Syndicate Bank Special Leave Scheme-2004. All confirmed employees of the Bank who have attained minimum age of 45 years and above and completed 20 years of service in the Bank are eligible to avail the special leave. The special leave could be availed of to take up Business/Vocation, Higher Education in India/Abroad, Medical Treatment or Personal Reasons. The special leave will be sanctioned for minimum of two years and maximum of four years at a time which may be extended if requested by the employee at the discretion of the Bank. The competent authority for sanctioning the l...
Tag this Judgment!Debashree Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Visveswaraiah Technological Universit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1531; 2006(3)KarLJ393
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. These two petitioners seeking a direction directing the first respondent-University to approve the admissions of the petitioners taking the prescription of eligibility as notified by the third respondent, AICTE under notification as per Annexure-Aby advertisement No. 22/ 2002 issued and published in the Indian National daily newspaper-the New Indian Express edition on Friday, November 1,2002 and further seeking a direction to the first respondent to treat the requirement of eligibility as one of passing/possessing any recognised Bachelor's Decree of minimum 3 years duration in any discipline, and for the course of study of MCA, requiring a study in the subject of mathematics at 10 + 2 level without prescription of any particular percentage of marks qualifying as notified by the third respondent, AICTE under notification vide Annexure A by advertisement in the news paper dated 1-11 -2002 as referred above and consequently approve the admission of the petitioners fu...
Tag this Judgment!B. Maribettappa Vs. the Zilla Panchayat and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1748; 2006(2)KarLJ654
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner was a daily wage worker in the services of the 1st respondent-Zilla Panchayat from 21-6-1979. Petitioner's services were regularized as a daily wage worker with effect from 1-1-1990 and the petitioner started working as a permanent employee from this date onwards by creating supernumerary post in terms of a Government Order No. DPAR 2 SLC 90, dated 6-8-1990.2. While the petitioner was working in such a position as a junior work inspector his services were placed at the disposal of the Zilla Panchayat, Chickmagalur, against an existing vacancy of Second Division Clerk a post which was available at Zilla Panchayat, Chickmagalur, and making the petitioner's appointment permanent with effect from 1-1-1998. These are all undisputed facts.3. Petitioner retired on attaining superannuation with effect from 31-3-2005.4. While the petitioner claimed for pensionary benefits on the premise that his services were regularised with effect from 1-1-1990 upto ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimappa and ors. Vs. Allisab and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ286
ORDER 3 RULES 1,2-Purpose and object of-Whether Order HI CPC deal with the Power of Attorney Holder exhaustively-HELD-The primary object of Order III Rule 1 CPC is to enable a party to perform certain acts before the Court, which he would have been otherwise required to do in person through recognized agent or pleader. The other object is to prevent perpetration of fraud by unauthorized person who poses himself to be the agent of a party before a Court. Order III Rule 2 contemplates the persons who are authorized to act. No unauthorized person can take part in the proceedings before a Court of law. Order III does not deal with the rights of parties who appear in person in Court, Order III Rule 1 CPC enacts a general rule and confers only procedural right. There are other modes of appearances, applications, or acting, expressly prescribed by the Code for particular cases, e.g., Order 33 Rule 3 and Order 44 Rule 1 CPC which, by reason of the words 'except where otherwise provided by any ...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Ananthaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1551; 2006(2)KarLJ412
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. The land in dispute in this case is Sy. No, 47 of the Panthar Palya, KengHobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 24 acres 37 guntas which is morefully described in the schedule to the writ petition, and hereinafter referred to as 'schedule land'. Petitioner is the son of Patel Chikkahanumaiah and grandson of Hanumanthappa. It is the case of the petitioner that his grandfather was the tenant of the scheduled land, having acquired the same under two lease deeds dated 30-6-1927 and 9-5-1936. Hanumanthappa was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land during his lifetime and after his death Patel Chikkahanumaiah continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. On coming into force of Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'), Patel Chikkahanumaiah applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore for grant of occupancy rights of the schedule land. The Special Deputy Commis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »