Karnataka Court March 2006 Judgments

Sri B. Srikantaiah S/O Late Basavaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka Repre ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR1449; 2007(6)KarLJ488; 2007(3)KCCRSN192; 2006(6)AIRKarR117(DB)

1. This writ petition is filed by the applicant in Application No. 1310/1998 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 9.12.2004 in so far as the order denies entitlement to any monetary benefit including back wages for the period from 26.3.1996-the date of dismissal order to the date of superannuation.2. The petitioner was appointed as Second Division Assistant in the Department of Agriculture on 5.8.1963 and promoted as First Division Assistant in the year 1974 and promoted as Superintendent in the year 1982. While he was working as Superintendent in the Office of the Agricultural Officer (Soil Conservation), Nagamangala in the District of Mandya during the year 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 he was served with the charge memo alleging that while he was incharge of the cash section which included the duty of drawing and disbursing the salary to the employees for the period from October 1983 to May 1986 a sum of Rs. 94,050-55ps was dr...

Vinod Manjunath Dhareshwar Vs. Karnataka State Open University and anr ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K Patil, J.1. In the instant case, petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the proceedings of the Malpractices and Lapses Enquiry Committee, dated 11th March, 2005 vide Annexure-D in Proceedings No. KSOU/EB/MPLEC/2004-05 on the file of the second respondent, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner herein had registered himself for M.A. (Economics) in correspondence course from the respondents-Karnataka State Open University (hereinafter called 'University') and in the month of July/August 2003, petitioner appeared for M.A. (Previous) Degree Examination and secured a 'pass'. Accordingly, the respondents-University issued the marks-card produce at Annexure-A, declaring the petitioner as 'pass' in M.A. (Previous) Degree Examination with Register No. 09809854. Thereafter, petitioner appeared for M.A. (Final) Examination held in the month of June/July 2004 and when he was awaiting for the ...

Global Academy of Technology and ors. Vs. All India Council for Techni ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners herein questioning the correctness of the impugned communication dated 20th October, 2005 bearing No. VTU/ACA/2005-06/A1/818 issued by the fourth respondent vide Annexure-L, have presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the fourth respondent to issue the Eligibility Certificate in respect of all the 43 students admitted to MBA course under the Management quota in the first petitioner-Institution for the academic year 2005-06. Further, petitioners have assailed the communication dated 24th October, 2005 bearing No. ED. 185/TEC/2005 vide Annexure-N issued by the third respondent and also to direct the third respondent to issue a corrigendum to the effect that, the approved intake of the first petitioner-Institution in respect of the MBA course is 60 and not 30.2. The petitioner 1 herein claims to be a Public and Charitable Trust by name Global Academy of Technology represented by its Trustee and...

Sri Rajaram Gangaram Athaley and ors. Vs. Late Abdul Rahiman Ahmadkar ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1783; 2006(3)KarLJ487

ORDERAshok B. Hinchegeri, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 28.02.2005 passed by Respondent No. 3 in Case No. CNM/CR/34/2000-01 (Annexure-G) and the order dated 13.06.2005 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 290/2005 (Annexure-K).2. The brief facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-title of respondents No. 1 and 2 leased the vacant land bearing No CTS 415/A-B in Ward No. 4, Bijapur City by deed dated 11.12.1962 to the petitioner No. 1 and his father. The lease period provided thereunder was 35 years. The monthly rent agreed upon under the lease deed was Rs. 125/- per month. The lessees built the Cinema theatre thereon and installed the equipments, machineries, furniture, etc., The Petitioners' father has been running the Cinema theatre in the name and style of 'Lakshmi Talkies'. The petitioners' father and thereafter the petitioners have been getting the licence granted and regranted without any difficulty. However in the year 1998, when...

Mrs. Sunanda Kumari Wife of L.R. Raghunath and L.R. Raghunath Son of L ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007]135CompCas604(Kar); ILR2006KAR16

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioners took a loan from the respondent bank. When they defaulted to pay the instalments, the respondent bank filed a suit as O.S.No. 6139/2000 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for recovery of the amounts due to the bank. While the suit is pending trial, the respondent bank issued to the petitioners a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Annexure-'B' is the copy of the said notice. In response to Annexure-'B' notice, petitioners sent Annexure-'C' reply dated 29-7-2003. In Annexure-'C' reply the petitioners did not dispute their liability. The only defence was that the bank had already filed a suit for recovery of the amount and therefore the provisions of Section 13 of the Act could not be enforced against the petitioners. However, the bank filed Annexure-D' application dated 27-1-2005 under Se...

Sri R.P. Karibasappanavar Vs. the Chief Engineer (Elec) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR522]; 2006(4)KarLJ133

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioner was an employee of the then Karnataka Electricity Board, now known as karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation') for the last over 30 years. He has been a Junior Engineer since 1994. During March, 1997, when he was discharging his duty as an in-charge Assistant Engineer (EI), he had furnished current transformer ratio (C.T. ratio) of R.R. No. TP-38/1 running in the mill of one Ganapathi Shetty of M/s, Mahaganapathi Rice Mill, Talaguppa as 50/5=K-10. It was found by calibration report of the Asst. Executive Engineer (Elec), M.T. Sub-Dvn, Shimoga that the C.T. ratio of the said installation is 75/5=K-15 as existing from the data of installation. According to the Corporation, it has sustained a pecuniary loss to an extent of Rs. 82,893/ for the period between March 1997 to May 1998.2. The Corporation issued a show cause notice as per Annexure-A, dated 7.9.1998 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why dis...

Novo Nordisk India Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ363

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of para 19 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 ('the Control Order' for short) and alternatively have sought for a declaration that para 19(1) of the Control Order does not apply to the petitioners. Further, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the prosecution launched by the Drugs Controller in C.C. No. 20163/ 2002 before the Court of the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and have also sought for quashing of the instructions dated 31.1.2002 (Annexure-D) issued by the Drugs Controller, Bangalore to all the officers re. launching of prosecutions for contravention of paras 14(2) & 19(1) of the Control Order.2. I have heard Sri. T. Suryanarayana, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Aravinda Kumar, Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Sri. A.G. Shivanna, Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1...

A. Hanumantha Reddy and ors. Vs. the Additional Registrar of Cooperati ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ548

ORDERNagamohan Das, J.1. The petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 21.07.1999 passed by the first respondent-the Additional Registrar of Coopertive Societies, Bangalore, and also, the order dated 27.04.2001 passed by the third respondent-the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and for other releifs.2. Petitioners are the employees working in the second respondent the Karnataka State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited (for short 'the Bank'). The Bank by notification dated 03.09.1992 invited application from internal candidates possessing the qualification of Law Degree of any recognised University to fill up the posts of Law Officers. Accordingly, the petitioners applied for the post of Law Officers. The Bank by order dated 28.01.1993 appointed these six petitioners as Law Officers. On 05.04.1993 the Bank fixed the pay scale of the petitioners in the cadre of Law Officers by excluding the personal pay that the...

Venkataraju S/O Munimadasetty and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka by t ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3412; ILR2006KAR3904; 2006(4)KarLJ486

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellant-accused 1 to 5 are convicted for an offence punishable Under Section 143, 144, 147, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution discloses that P.W.2 on 22-2-1998 got down from the bus at 9-20 a.m. at Kuretty Hosur. At bus stand lot of people had gathered and there was commotion. The accused persons carrying deadly weapons exhorted one another to assault P.W.2 on the ground that he belongs to Puttashetty group thus all the accused persons come rushing towards P.W.2 and assaulted him causing as many as three fractures with the deadly weapons.2. The prosecution proves the guilt of the accused by the evidence of P.W.2 the victim, P.W.4 the wife of the victim, P.W. 1 is the doctor who has treated and issued wound certificate at Ex.P.1 to corroborate the version of P.W.1 regarding the fracture injuries. In the cross-examination of P.W. 2 and 4 nothing is elicited to dent the veracity, On over all consideration, it is to be seen that the accused are liab...

State by Mahila Police Vs. Gnanendra and ors.

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. The State has questioned the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, dated 15-9-1999 acquitting the respondents herein of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Though there were four accused persons initially, the second accused, namely, the mother of first accused died and hence, the case was proceeded against only the other three accused who are respondents 1 to 3 before this Court.2. The charge against the accused persons was that the first respondent being the husband, second respondent and third respondent being the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased Kavita, along with deceased Rukminiamma who was the mother-in-law of Kavita, subjected the said Kavita to cruel treatment in connection with demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- along with jewels, and subsequent demand of Rs. 3 lakhs as dowry and in addition to this, the a...