Karnataka Court December 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shankar M. Pujari S/O Madhugonda Pujari Vs. the Divisional Controller, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR340]; ILR2008KAR970; 2008(3)KarLJ592; (2008)IIILLJ828Kant
1. The appellant workman was appointed as a conductor in the respondent-establishment Appellant was conducting the bus from Sangli to Bagalkot on 29.10.1997, which was checked and on inspection, it was found that he had not issued 8 tickets to the passengers, of Rs. 4/- denomination each. The inspection team found that the appellant had not acted in accordance with the Principle 'issue and start'. The matter was reported to the employer. Taking into consideration, the report of the inspecting team, a charge sheet dated 11.12.1997 was issued to the appellant, alleging misconduct by the appellant in the matter of discharge of his duty and failing to act in accordance with the service regulations of the respondent-Corporation. The appellant has submitted his statement of objections to the charge sheet on 22.3.1998. A disciplinary enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the regulations of the respondent-Corporation and based on the report of the enquiring officer that, the charges le...
Y.L. Eservices Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant127; ILR2008KAR549; 2008(4)KarLJ259; 2008(1)KCCR363; 2008(2)AIRKarR290; AIR2008Kar127; 2008(3)CivilLJ615; 2008AIHC1983(Kar)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', seeking appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute that has arisen between the parties as per Clause 32 of the Deed of Sub-Lease dated 09.08,2006.2. The petitioner is the company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is carrying on business inter alia of IT enabled services. The respondents are also companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The first respondent entered into a registered Deed of Sub-Lease with the petitioner on 09.08.2006 in respect of a portion of the first floor of 'Mfar Silverline Business Tech Park', claiming to be the allottee of the said property from the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, as per Annexure-A.3. Now disputes have arisen between the parties in working out the aforesaid contract According to the petitioner Clause 32 of th...
Vikas Electrical Service Rep. by Its Proprietor, M.T. Baddi Vs. Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant88; ILR2008KAR1304; 2008(3)KarLJ419; 2008(3)ICC324; 2008AIHC2011(Kar); 2008(2)KCCRSN122; 2008(2)AIRKarR408; AIR2008Kar88
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. The appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law;1. Whether the learned appellate Judge was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court without considering the oral and documentary evidence2. The claim of the plaintiff for damages was decreed by the learned trial Judge and the same was reversed. Hence the present appeal.3. During the course of this judgment parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.4. Facta in brief are as under:The plaintiff is an electrical contractor doing electrical work. The defendant-board represented by the Executive Engineer called upon the plaintiff to execute the work at 33, 110 and 220 KV Stations, of KPTCL, Basavanabagewadi, worth Rs. 76,584/-, respectively. In this regard, the Superintending Engineer (Electrical), TL & SS KEB, Navanagar, Hubli issued three Office Memorandums and they were construed as work orders. The case of the plaintiff is that pursuant to ...
Srinivasa Gowda Vs. H.J. Leelavathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ152; 2008(1)KCCR302; 2008(2)AIRKarR111; AIR2008NOC1108; 2008CriLJ(NOC)547; 2008(3)Crimes530; 2008(1)AICLR622
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a case where the learned Judge of the Court below has passed a right order but given wrong reasons in support of the right order.2. This revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is by the husband who had put up a defence to avoid payment of maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife in terms of an earlier order of the Court below when that order was sought to be enforced for recovery of the amount by pointing out that there were some subsequent developments; that the husband had obtained decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding before the Competent Court in MC No. 17 of 2002 in terms of the judgment dated 17-1-2006 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Channarayapatna and therefore the petitioner-husband was not liable to pay maintenance amount but which defence has been found to be not a valid defence by the Court below and the Court below having ordered payment of maintenance as had...
Association of Physical Education Teachers Rep. by Its Secretary, Shri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR321; 2008(3)KarLJ423; 2008(1)KCCR109; 2008(2)AIRKarR364
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is an association registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The 2nd petitioner is its trustee. The 1st petitioner is an association of Physical Education Teachers who are working in various Colleges affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.2. Section 20 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, deals with, the 'Authorities of the University'. One of them is the 'Senate'. Section 21 deals with the Senate of the University. The senate shall consists of different members from different faculties. Under Section 21(1)(xii), Five teachers, other than professors elected from amongst themselves shall also constitute the members of the Senate. Section 2(m) of the Act defines the 'Teachers', which reads as hereunder;(m) 'Teachers' includes Professors, Readers, Assistant Professors, Lecturers and such other persons giving instruction on full time basis in a college or institu...
Kempoji Rao Vs. the Special Land Acquisition and Estate Officer and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant54; 2008(1)KarLJ140; 2008(1)KCCR305; 2008(2)AIRKarR199; 2008AIHC1657(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition is by a person who had tried his chances to seek not only for compensation in respect of an extent of 26 guntas of land in Sy. No. 121/19 of Arisinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangla Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, but also for a better compensation and whose attempt had failed in terms of the impugned order dated 29-11-2006 passed in LAC No. 270 of 2002, by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.2. While presenting this revision petition, it is claimed that there is a delay of 20 days and to get over the delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 supported with an affidavit explaining the delay and seeking for condonation of the same is filed.3. Notice had been issued to the respondents and respondents-State of Karnataka and the Special Land Acquisition Officer are represented by Sri R.B. Venkataramana, learned Government Pleader.4. I have heard S...
Sree Vinayaka Roadways Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Deb ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST436(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Subject-matter of this writ petition is non-release of certain goods, which were seized by the officials of the Commercial Taxes Department, while the goods were in transit.2. Writ petitioner is a person claiming to be the manager of M/s. Shree Vinayak Roadways, Isanpur-Narol Highway, Isanpur, Ahmedabad, who has sought for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to release forthwith the goods that were attached by the respondent under the proceedings dated July 24, 2004 (annexure C). Writ petitioner has also sought for costs of the writ petition.3. The petition is presented on the premise that the goods in question were attached for the purpose of realising a sum of Rs. 1,52,466 levied by way of penalty under Section 53(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Act'), as it was found that the goods in transit were not supported by commensurate transit documents.4. It is the version of the petitioner that the petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›