Karnataka Court January 2007 Judgments
K. Bhaskara Acharya S/O Ganapayya Acharya, Assistant Professor of Mech ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar987; 2007(2)KarLJ582; 2007(3)KCCRSN156; 2007(2)AIRKarR334
ORDERN. Ananda, J.1. This is a second round litigation. The facts in brief, the judicial proceedings and orders which have preceded the impugned order are as follows:1. On 03.09.1981, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering in Siddhartha Institute of Technology, Tumkur. He was on probation for a period of one year in terms of the appointment order as per Annexure-A. On 11.09.1981 petitioner reported to duty. On 04.01.1984, petitioner submitted a leave letter, in response to the same, the 1st respondent terminated the services of petitioner on 06.01.1984 by issuing an order in terms of Annexure-D, inter alia stating that petitioner was going on leave as he liked without obtaining prior permission from the management; even though he had been instructed on previous occasions, the petitioner has not rectified himself. Therefore, 1st respondent issued termination order as per Annexure-D, heating the same as one month's notice to relieve the petitioner.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Tulunadu Finance and Development, Rep. by Its Manager, N. Prahalad Bal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ187; 2007(2)KCCR962; 2007(2)AIRKarR341
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner is a financier who had financed certain amounts to a registered motor vehicle - a maxi cab bearing CTX No.6435 registered with the 1st respondent office of the Regional Transport Officer, Udupi.2. It appears the vehicle was seized by the petitioner for non-payment of the borrowed amount by the respondents and took possession of the vehicle.3. It is the version of the petitioner that he had submitted a communication and thereafter he had surrendered the documents of the vehicle with the 1st respondent end that had also been accepted by the 1st respondent. It is also the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner had indicated the place of parking of the vehicle for enquiry etc., by the authority. It appears that the authorities had inspected the place of such parking of the vehicle as on 28.2.2003 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector had reported that the vehicle was not found in the place. It is thereafter that the 1st respondent took ...
Tag this Judgment!Munirathnamma Vs. the Asst. Commissioner, Kolar Sub-division and the S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar690; 2007(1)KLJ543; 2007(2)KCCR1100; 2007(2)AIRKarR357(DB)
S.R. Bannurmath J.1. The appellant, aggrieved by the rejection of its Writ Petition No. 8619/06 dated 3.7.2006 by the learned Single Judge, has approached this Court in the present appeal.2. The appellant who was Adhyaksha of Abbenahalli Grama Panchayat has approached this Court in the said writ, petition challenging the validity or otherwise of the notice dated 30.5.2006 issued by the first respondent Assistant Commissioner as well as for quashing the no confidence resolution held on 17.6.2006.3. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. As already noted, the appellant is the Adhyaksha of the Abbenahalli Grama Panchayat. It appears, the members had moved the Assistant Commissioner to convey a meeting as per Section 49 read with Rule 3 of the Karnataka Pancyahat Raj (Motion of no confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 to pass resolution of no confidence against the appellant. As per the Rules, the Assistant Commissioner on 30.5.2006, issued no...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Valliappa Textiles Limited Represented by Its Genera ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ48; ILR2007(1)Kar974; 2007(3)KCCRSN164; 2007(2)AIRKarR558
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question Annexure 'G' by which the Labour Commissioner and specified authority Under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,62,929.88 paise as closure compensation and an amount of Rs. 83,108/- for the difference amount in terms of closure compensation.2. The case of the workmen is that the petitioner-Industry was closed w.e.f. 16.6.1999. Despite of the closure, the workman have not been paid any retrenchment compensation and in this regard they filed an application Under Section 33C(1). Interalia, seeking for issue of a Certificate for recovering the said amount as arrears. In their application they claimed total amount of Rs. 2,84,644.88 paisa. similarly they also claimed the difference of the amount in respect of another applicant to the tune of Rs. 83,108/-.3. In response to the said application, the Labour Commissioner called upon the Management by hi...
Tag this Judgment!N.P. Ravi Subbaiah Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR5294
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the respondents had issued an auction notification on 27-4-2006 for excavation of the sand from the river course of Kaveri river at Kattemadu village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District. Different points have been assigned different block numbers. The petitioner has participated in the auction of one such block i.e. block, No. 4. Auction was fixed on 10-5-2006 in the office of the Tahsildar at 11.00 A.M. The minimum rate fixed by the competent authority was Rs. 5,000/- per acre for excavation of ordinary sand. The auction was held on 10-5-2006 and the petitioner was admittedly the highest bidder. Petitioner has deposited 25% of the bid amount with the 3rd respondent on the same day. The 3rd respondent has issued an endorsement as per Annexure-C intimating the petitioner that the committee has not accepted the bid of the petitioner since it is on the lower side and to take back 25% of the amount deposited earlier. Petitioner has called in question t...
Tag this Judgment!New Kiran Cashews Rep. by Its Managing Partner Sri A.M. Mahadevappa Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)9VST220(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a dealer under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [for short the Act'] who claims to be aggrieved by the amended provisions of Section 6A of the Act.2. Section 6A reads as under:6-A: Burden of proof etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale -[1] Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods, from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by ram to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly fitted and signed by the prin...
Tag this Judgment!Gangappa Bankappa Angadi. Vs. Basappa Bankappa SannakoodalA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)KCCR2852
(This W.P. filed praying to quash the order of the land Tribunal dated 24.2.99 vide Annex.B).1. The petitioner is granted occupancy rights to the extent of 14 acres in Sy. No. 63/1 of Mookabasarikatti Village of Shiggaon Taluk. The respondents 1 to 3 have been granted occupancy rights in Sy. Nos. 63/2, 63/3 and 63/4 measuring 8 acres 39 guntas each.2. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. no. 172/86 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr Dn), Haveri alleging encroachment to the extent of 33 guntas by the defendant and for relief of possession. The suit is decreed in RA 41/92. It is found that first defendant has encroached to the land to the extent of 33 guntas of land and granted the decree for possession. In the second appeal, this Court made the following observations:-However, in view of the concurrent finding of facts of the alleged encroachment by the first defendant complained of by the plaintiff, rendered by the courts below, there is no question of law involved in the second appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri K. Prakash S/O Sri T.S. Krishna Murthy Vs. the Registrar General, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ549; 2008(4)KCCRSN294; 2008(5)AIRKarR213(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner is a law graduate from the Bangalore University. He has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent-Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka to allow him to participate in the selection process for the post of Second Division Assistant in the High Court as per notification dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure-A).2. The High Court of Karnataka issued Annexure-A notification dated 21.03.2006 inviting applications from qualified candidates for recruitment to 50 posts of Second Division Assistants. As per the notification, selection of candidates will be made in accordance with the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 and the High Court of Karnataka Service (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1984 as amended from time to time. The minimum qualification for the post is a degree of a recognised University with a minimum of 45 per cent marks in the aggregate for candidates belonging to Sche...
Tag this Judgment!N. Munivenkatappa S/O Late Nandiyellappa Vs. the State of Karnataka by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ216; ILR2007(1)Kar626; 2007(2)KCCR886; 2007(2)AIRKarR304
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner retired from service as an Executive Engineer with the second respondent Corporation, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2001.2. The petitioner contends that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and five others by a notice dated 30.10.2000, on the allegation that certain road repairs were got executed unauthorisedly resulting in a cost overrun and thereby causing loss to the Corporation. The petitioner had denied the charges. However, the third respondent had proceeded to frame common charges against the petitioner and five others and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. The petitioner was furnished a copy of the enquiry report, to which he had made a representation dated 11.9.2003, pointing out that the enquiry was vitiated for reasons stated therein, and requested that the proceedings be closed and his pensionary benefits be released.3. As there was ...
Tag this Judgment!P.B. Durgannavar S/O Bheemappa and C.D. Sanganna Gowdar S/O Dondappa G ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ737Kant; ILR2007(2)KarSN21; 2007(2)KarLJ487; 2007(1)KCCR635; 2007(2)AIRKarR301
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The facts of the case are:The petitioners were employed by the respondent Bank. The Bank had introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in terms of a Circular dated 29.12.2000. It was open to all permanent employees of the Bank, except those defined as 'ineligible'. It was stipulated that employees ought to have completed 40 years of age as on 31.12.2000. The petitioners claimed to be eligible and submitted their applications seeking voluntary retirement.2. In implementing the above Scheme, the Bank decided to specify a 'cut-off age' of 55 years and rejected the applications of the petitioners, since according to the Bank, the petitioners were both born on 1.1.1946 and had not attained the age of 55 years as on 31.12.2000. The petitioners had continued to be in the service of the Bank.3. By coincidence, an employee of the very respondent bank, within the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and whose application had been rejected on the very ground th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »