Karnataka Court July 2007 Judgments
S.N. Nagaraju S/O Nanjundachar Vs. the Superintending Engineer (Elecl) ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ517; (2008)IILLJ259Kant; 2007(6)AIRKarR65
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by an employee of the respondent-Chamundeswhari Electricity Supply Company, who is aggrieved by not only the adverse punishment order suffered at the hands of the disciplinary authority in a domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner by the employer but also the order passed by the first respondent-appellate authority enhancing the punishment, passed in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the disciplinary authority.2. While the disciplinary authority had inflicted the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner, in view of the charges levelled against him having been found proved in a domestic enquiry and on the basis of the report with which the disciplinary authority concurred, the appellate authority in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the disciplinary authority not merely has declined to interfere with, but thought it fit to enhance the pun...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Baljee Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ504; 2007(4)KCCR2391; 2007(5)AIRKarR527
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order dated 3-8-2005 as per Annexure-H by which the Bangalore Development Authority has cancelled the allotment of site.2. In pursuance of the notification dated 17-9-2003 issued by the respondent-authority in Kannada daily Vijaya Karnataka' inviting applications for allotment of residential sites in BSK 6th Stage Layout, the petitioner filed an application seeking for allotment of a site measuring 15x 24 mtrs. Annexure-R1 produced by the respondent is the copy of the application filed by the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 94,500/- was deposited along with the aforesaid application. The total value of the site was Rs. 7,56,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid application, site bearing No. 1180 was allotted to the petitioner as per Annexure-B, dated 1-2-2004. As per Annexure-C, no objection was issued by the Bangalore Development Authority permitting him to offer the property allotted as a security for raising the loan to...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.K.A. Enterprises Vs. Suchita Industries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ285; 2007(6)AIRKarR433; 2008AIHC521(Kar)
A.S. Bopanna, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the defendant in O.S. No. 6576 of 2005 pending before the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The respondent herein who is the plaintiff in the said suit is before the Court below in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and persons claiming under them in any manner using and/or infringing upon the plaintiffs trade name mark 'Tiny care' or any other trade name which is identical to and/or deceptively and/or confusingly similar to that of the plaintiffs trade mark 'Tiny care' vide Nos. 477911B, dated 7-9-1987 and 318182B, dated 31-8-1976. The plaintiff has also further prayed to restrain the defendants in any way selling or offering to sell and/or passing off the infringed product or any other products, directly or indirectly bearing the name 'Cozy care' or any other name or any other mark which is similar to the trade name 'Tiny care' of the plaintiff. That apart certain other ancillary reliefs are also cl...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikanth S. Patil and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Principal Se ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2719
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In all these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in application Nos. 6432 to 6437/2006 and other connected matters dated 11-4-2007 whereby the applications filed by them for a mandamus directing the respondents to fill up 35 posts of Inspector of Motor Vehicles ('IMV' for short) pursuant to a notification bearing No. PSC.1.RTB/1996, dated 3-1-1997 and to consider their candidature to the said post were dismissed.2. Petitioners are the holders of Diploma in Automobile Engineering. The second respondent vide notification dated 3-1-1997 invited applications for filling up 35 posts of IMVS in Motor Vehicle Department. Pursuant to the notification, petitioners submitted applications in the prescribed form enclosing copies of the certificates in proof of educational qualification, reservation category and experience certificates along with the prescribed fee by way of demand draft. It is conten...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Lt. Col. Rakesh Gautam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ202; 2008(3)KCCR1530; 2008(5)AIRKarR28(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31-7-2006 in Writ Petition No. 10327 of 2003 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition.2. While the writ petitioner was serving as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army, a Court of inquiry was ordered against him by respondent 6 on 28-8-1998. The said Court of inquiry was in respect of alleged misuse of railway warrants by the writ petitioners. The Court of Inquiry was ordered to inquire into the following:(a) The exact number of railway warrants and Form Ds issued and used by IC-33219P Lt. Col. Rakesh Gautam of 50 Coy ASC (Sup.) Type 'C' while performing the duties of OC 50 Coy ASC (Sup.) Type 'C' and if the same have been issued to him as per auth. This may also be checked from CDA, if felt necessary.(b) To pinpoint the blame, if any regarding issue procedure and auditing of the railway warrants by the unit concerned.3. The proceedings of the Court of inq...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by Its Manager Vs. Shivabasavva W/O La ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ953; [2008(119)FLR784]; 2008(3)KarLJ71
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One Kallappa was employed as loader under R-l on contact basis and piece basis for loading the goods of the passengers in the transport vehicle of R-l. Another goods vehicle which was stationed beyond the goods vehicle in question was suddenly started and made a movement. The deceased sandwiched between two lorries and died.2. The dependants of the deceased made a claim before the W.C. Commissioner seeking compensation. R-1 filed written statement denying the relationship of employer and employee. It is said that the deceased was authorised by R-1 for loading the goods of the consignor. The deceased had to collect remuneration from the consignor for loading into the lorry of R-1, therefore, submitted that R-1 does not pay any wages/remuneration to the deceased for the work done. Hence, the deceased is not the employee and there exists no relationship of the employer and employee.3. The W.C. Commissioner held that the deceased is employee of R-l and awarded the com...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Regional Office Rep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1528; ILR2007KAR3665; 2008(1)KarLJ536
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The insurer is in appeal challenging the liability fastened, on it.2. The brief facts as would be necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:One Irayya Suresh Haladevarmath died as a result of an accident caused by a truck belonging to the third respondent herein, on 7.5.2002. His parents, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a claim petition seeking compensation on the death of their son. It is seen that the offending vehicle was covered under a policy of insurance issued by the appellant, on 15.1.2002., It however, transpires that on 5.2.2002, the cheque which was issued towards payment of premium, by the insured is said to have been dishonoured. This fact was intimated to the insured -third respondent. He was also intimated of the cancellation of policy for want of premium, by a registered letter dated 13.2.2002, by the appellant. In terms of Rule 10 of Third Party Insurance Rules, the appellant, had also intimated the concerned Regional Transport Off...
Tag this Judgment!Robinsons S. S/O Late Sri Stephenson Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ462
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person serving in the Indian Army, who was promoted to the post of Havaldar from 1st January 2001 onwards. The petitioner is aspiring to be promoted to the post of Naib Subedar, the next promotional post The requirement of havaldar to become eligible to be promoted as Naib Subedar is that he must have earned a minimum of five favourable annual confidential reports with two regiment reports indicating grading him 'outstanding' and three more reports grading him in general as above average.2. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the reports were lacking for consideration of his case for promotion, in the sense there was only one regimental report and the petitioner could not be considered for promotion.3. The peculiar situation that prevails in the Indian Army is that a person will be eligible for being considered to the post of Naib Subedar only if he is within the age of 44 years and should have earned the necessary number of reports.4. S...
Tag this Judgment!G.B. Suryaprakash, Asst. Controller(Retd.) Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3540; 2008(2)KarLJ591; ILR2007(3)Kar3540; 2007(6)AIRKarR280(DB).
ORDERGopala Gowda, J.1. Heard the petitioner-in-person.2. One of the conditions prescribed in Clause 4 of the Government Order dated 7-11-1984 for stepping-up the pay of the senior to the pay of junior is:(ii) On the date of promotion or on the date on which he was allowed the selection time-scale of pay, the senior Government servant should have been drawing pay equal to or higher than that of the junior Government servant.The same is contrary to the Constitutional mandate enshrined under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 39 of the Constitution. The decision reported in 1994 K.S.L.J 156 (Gopalappa v. State) was not brought to our notice at the time of disposing of the writ petition. In that decision, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : (1989)IILLJ149SC (State of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Sreenivasa Rao) is followed, in which at paragraph 15 it is held as under:15...When a single running pay scale is provided in a cadre the constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal work is satisfied. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. Pistabai (Deceased) by Her L.Rs. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ514; 2007(4)KCCR2236
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. What started as an earnest and serious attempt on the part of an offended person, who felt his property rights were invaded and instituted a suit for injunction as also a mandatory injunction for removing the offending part of the building in the neighbourhood and though had resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiffs with the defendant being quite naturally aggrieved by the decree and approaching this Court for relief in an appeal and a serious debate as to the correctness or otherwise of the conduct of the plaintiffs and the defendant in the light of material placed by them before the Trial Court and also about the judgment of the Trial Court has ultimately turned out to be a quite withdrawal of the complaints or grievances of the parties particularly with the possibility of a proper scrutiny by the law enforcing second respondent-Corporation of the City of Bangalore and has ultimately resulted in a joint memo being filed by the petitioner and the resp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »