Karnataka Court July 2006 Judgments

Dr. Basawaraj Revanasiddappa Guragol S/O Revanasiddappa Vs. the State ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR4555; 2007(5)KarLJ655;

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 25424/2004 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against Annexure-'K' notification dated 10.1.2003 containing the final seniority list of the Microbiology Department in the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli-second respondent herein, ranking the third respondent Dr. Shobha D. Nadgir above the petitioner Dr. Basawaraj Revanasiddappa Guragol and also the appointment of the fourth respondent Dr. Chadrashekar as Chairman of the Department of Microbiology. Both the challenges were rejected by the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Writ petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal.2. There cannot be any inter se seniority between the appellant and the fourth respondent Dr. Chandrasekhar. The appellant was recruited as Associate Professor and continues to be in the cadre of Associate Professor, whereas, the fourth respondent ...

K. Ramakrishnappa Vs. State by Bandur Camp Police Station

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ83

K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment of conviction dated 19-4-1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in S.C. No. 68 of 1994, -whereby the Trial Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and further R.I. for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. The appellant herein not being satisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, challenged in this appeal on the following grounds.2. Learned Sessions Judge has gravely erred in convicting the appellant-accused for the aforesaid offences. It is full of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of official witnesses had not been corroborated by any of the independent witnesses. Even then, t...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jenny Bai and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ2493; 2008(1)KarLJ261; 2006(6)AIRKarR70; AIR2007NOC758; 2007ACJ-IV-2493(DB).

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 4,08,000 to the claimants following the death of one Dayananda.2. As the appeal by the insurance company is with regard to the quantum of compensation, we enquired with the learned Counsel as to whether permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was obtained. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the insurance company that though the application was filed seeking permission to contest on all issues under Section 170 of said Act, the Tribunal did not pass any order which is clear from the order sheet.3. We find support for the above submission from the observation made by the Tribunal at para 4 of its judgment. Therefore, it is clear that the insurance company did file application seeking permission to contest on all issues, but the Tribunal has not passed any order on the said application. It is imperative on the part...

Bhadra Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamith, Rep. by Its Managing Direct ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERR. Gururajan. J.1. Petitioner is before us challenging the order of the Karanataka Appellate tribunal dtd. 1-12-2003 passed in STA No. 1597 & 1598/2002.2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar from sugar cane. It sells the same along with its by-products like molasses and bagasses etc., For the assessment year period from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1991 petitioner filed a return of turnover and declared the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 10,54,41,976.21 and Rs. 31,01,297.16 respectively. The assessing authority rejected the said return of turn over and passed an assessment order under Section 12(3) of the KST Act on 10-2-1998 and determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 19,35,80,540/- and Rs. 9,10,92,480/- respectively to the best of its judgment and levied tax of Rs. 97,86,260/-. In the said assessment order he had determined the purchase price of sugarcane at Rs. 390/- per MT. An appeal was filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Appeals. ...

Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Union (now called the Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3384; 2007(1)KarLJ147

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners have sought for a declaration declaring that the notification dated 17.04.1997 issued by the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus of the settlement dated 30.09.1974 and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India and for consequential benefits in so far as it relates to:(i) denial of free Electricity to die future incumbents to the Board's service;(ii) prescribing Pre-University Course qualification to the post of Junior Assistants; and(iii) prescribing ITC/ITI qualification to the posts of Assistant Line-men and equivalent categories.2. Before 1957, the generation and transmission of electrical power was discharged by the erstwhile Electrical Department of the Government of Mysore. Under the provisions of Indian Electricity (Supply) Act a Board was constituted on 30.09.1957 in place of the Government Electrical Department. Subsequently, in the year 1970, the Electr...

Pundalika Savanna Kaladagi Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ571; 2007(1)AIRKarR426(DB); ILR2006(4)Kar4548

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 17-7-2006 in Writ Petition No. 8300 of 2006 (S-PRO) (Pundalika Savanna Kaladagi v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2006 (5) AIR Kar. R. 365). The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it is not maintainable as the petitioner should approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute raised in the writ petition.2. The appellant is a member of the Medical Education Service of the Government of Karnataka. He was appointed as Professor (Orthopaedics) in the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, on deputation. While the appellant was working as Professor (Orthopaedics) in the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, on deputation, the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Director of the Institute as per notification dated 19-3-2005. In r...

Sri. M. Siddappa S/O. A. Muniyappa Vs. the Board of Governors Indian I ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of penalty dated 09.07.1993 passed by the respondent dismissing the petitioner from service and for consequential reliefs.2. Petitioner joined the service of respondent in the year 1974 as Research Fellow. With effect from 16.01.1986 the petitioner was designated as Assistant Professor. The petitioner was an active trade union leader and in the year 1986 he was the elected Vice-President of the Indian Institute of Management Employees Association. On 10.07.1987 the respondents issued articles of charges alleging that on 18.07.1986 the petitioner and five others assaulted an employee, Sri. Padmanahha Nair, and thus committed grave misconduct under Rule 11.3[i] - [iii] of India Institute of Management Service Rules (For short 'Rules'). The petitioner by big reply dated 03.08.1987 denied the charges leveled against him. The Disciplinary Authority being no...

Shivappa Shetty @ Shivaswamy S/O Late Areshetty (Since Dead by Lrs Raj ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant19; 2007(5)KarLJ73

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 31st July 2000 passed by the learned Prl. District Judge, Hassan, in R.A. No. 3/96.2. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of both sides and perused the material on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.3. Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 46/1991, for declaration and injunction initially in respect of four properties. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendants, the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court relating to declaration. However, the first Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree with regard to perpetual injunction. Thus, the suit was decreed in part in so far as it relates to prayer for injunction was concerned. Against the refusal of relief of declaration, the legal representatives of the...

N.G. Pandurangappa S/O N.T. Govindappa Vs. the Secretary and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The first respondent, by a Notification dated 5.5.2002, invited applications for recruitment to the posts of Typists and also other posts. The petitioner is concerned with the post of a Typist. According to the notification, six posts of typists were advertised for selection and appointment. The classification of these six posts, was as under:1) General Merit - 2 posts2) Scheduled Castes - 1 post3) Scheduled Tribes- 1 post Other Backward classes4) Group IIA - 1 post5) Group IIB - 1 postThe minimum qualification prescribed for the post of a typist was a pass in S.S.L.C. or equivalent examination and a pass in Senior grade English and Kannada Typewriting examinations, preference being given to those who have knowledge of shorthand. The petitioner was a Scheduled Caste candidate. He had passed the requisite examinations namely, S.S.L.C., Kannada Typewriting Senior Grade and English Typewriting Senior Grade and also Kannada Senior Grade Shorthand examination and ...

Goetze (India) Ltd. Rep. by Chief General Manager, Mr. Lodhi and the E ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ654

1. The appellants are before this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2004 passed by the Court of the XXXV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore city in O.S. No. 7383/1999. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the Civil Judge, apart from allowing IA-VI permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include the claim for damages, has declared the order of termination dated 30.6.1999 marked as Ex.P13 in the suit as illegal, unjust arbitrary and the same is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge has further directed reinstatement of the plaintiff to the same post which be was holding on the date of termination and damages of Rs. 7,65,216/- has been awarded to the plaintiff. By the said Judgment, the Civil Judge has further directed that the Court fee of Rs. 56,665/- payable by the plaintiff shall be paid by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The appellants are therefore aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. While...