Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR4467; 2009(1)KarLJ687; 2008(3)KCCR1674(DB)
1. The appellant herein has challenged the order dated 19.2.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. 11067/07 (Excise) declining to interfere with various orders impugned therein passed by the respondents herein and to quash the said orders.2. Stated in brief the facts are as under:(a) The Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 15.6.2005 (Annexure-A) calling for the tenders from the licensed excise contractors in respect of lease of right of Retail vend of Arrack in polythene sachets for the period from 1.7.2005 to 30.6.2006 of the excise year 2005-07. In response thereto the appellant herein submitted his sealed tender (Annexure-B) on dated 26.5.2005 at 2.00 p.m. which date and time was fixed in the said notification as the last date and time for submitting the tenders.(b) Shortly within a few minutes of submitting his said tender, the appellant noticed that he had quoted in the said tender higher price by mistake calculated at 5% over and above the E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(6)KarLJ740; 2008(4)AIRKarR422
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing (B Group) are taken up for final disposal. Though the Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has sought for an adjournment on the ground that the Advocate General would appear in the matters and would seek to address arguments at length. Having regard to the limited scope of challenge in these petitions and the facts and circumstances of the case and today being the last sitting day for the Court before the commencement of the Summer Vacation, little purpose is served in adjourning the matters beyond the Summer Vacation to hear the learned Advocate-General. Accordingly, the matters are considered for final disposal on the basis of the pleadings and averments made.2. The brief factual matrix in these petitions are as follows:In WP. No. 1312/2008 the petitioner is a partnership firm which has established a Restaurant in the name and style of 'Port of Pavillion', at Gandhinagar, Bangalore. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR3961; 2009(3)KarLJ340
ORDERRavi Malimath, J.1. At the request of all the counsels appearing, the petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners were the owners of a portion of the land bearing Sy. No. 49/1 totally measuring 15 acres, which was subsequently phoded as Sy. Nos. 49/1, 49/2 and 49/3 of Marlur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur District. The petitioners were the owners of 1 acre 21 1/2 guntas of the said lands. By virtue of a Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, ('Act' for short) dated 6.8.1991 and the Final Notification dated 15.5.1992, the lands of the petitioners were acquired. Thereafter, the State issued a Notification under Section 48 of the Act on 2.8.1993, denotifying from acquisition the said lands. The third respondent herein, filed Writ Petition No. 44142/1993, questioning the order of De-notification, which came to be dismissed. The Writ Appeal filed against the said order was also rejected and consequently, the third respondent approa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(6)KarLJ66; 2008(5)AIRKarR9; 2008LabIC(NOC)1057(Kar)(DB)
1. Management has filed W.A. 1635/2007. Workman has filed W.A. 2343/2007. Both these appeals are directed against the order passed on 31.7.2007 by the learned Single Judge, allowing in part the writ petition filed by the workman in W.P. 45292/2003. Workman in his appeal, has also prayed to hold the domestic enquiry conducted against him, as unfair, improper and to order his reinstatement into service, with backwages and ail consequential benefits. Since both the appeals raise common questions of facts and law, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as 'workman' and 'management' respectively.3. Management had appointed the workman, as a watchman in its establishment. Management issued a charge sheet dated 1.4.1998 to the workman, alleging that he had unauthorisedly removed a flexible water hose-pipe of about 65 feet in length from ISEC campus on 8.12.1997 and had sold it to one Ramaiah, which was a gross ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3793; 2008(5)KarLJ622; ILR2008(2)Kar2650; 2008(3)KCCR1930; 2008(5)AIRKarR86; AIR2008NOC2544; 2008(4)CivilLJ592
V. Jagannathan, J.1. Whether a Counsel is disentitled to appear for thus complainant on account of the Counsel being a creditor to the complainant and whether the Power of Attorney holder is incompetent to file the complaint and give evidence in Section 138 proceedings of the N.I. Act and whether the cheques issued being dishonoured on account of the accounts being transferred to another branch of the same bank, attracts the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act, are the questions that have cropped up during in the course of hearing of all these appeals, calling for an answer.2. The respondent in all these appeals being one and the same person and the cheques issued by him to each of the complainants having been dishonoured and all the cheques being issued in respect of a memorandum of agreement reached between the complainant Vishnu Bharath and one Bhakthavatsalam and the respondent, the trial Court after having the evidence of the power of attorney holder being recorded in all the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR2700; 2008(4)KCCRSN307
ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to constitute a Fund called 'Karnataka Registered Clerks' Welfare Fund' for payment of retirement benefits, etc. , to the Registered Clerks of Advocates in the State of Karnataka, in terms of Section 27 of the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983.2. I have heard Sri B.M. Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Association, Sri H.M. Manjunath, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.3. The case put forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Association of the State Level Advocates' Clerks and is registered with the Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore. The Advocates, Vakils, Barristers and Pleaders in turn engaged the services of persons to work under them as Clerks. Such of those Clerks who have been worki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(1)KarLJ575; 2008(4)AIRKarR497; AIR2008NOC2304(DB)
1. The appellant herein has challenged the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26.9.2007 passed in W.P. 5862/06 (APMC) declining to interfere with the order of the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Davanagere, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Judge') dated: 23-02-2006 dismissing the Election Misc. Petition No. 4/2005 that was filed by the appellant and also the said order of the Trial Judge.2. Stated in brief the case of the appellant as averred in his petition tiled under Section 20 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are as under:a) The appellant and the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (who were respectively the petitioner and respondents-3 to 5 in the election misc. petition) contested the election held on 29.8.2005 to the post of Director of second respondent APMC, Davanagere, from No. 9, Anagodu constituency . The first respondent Tahsildar of Davanagere was the Returning Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(6)KarLJ668; (2009)IILLJ269Kant; ILR2008(3)Kar3585(DB)
1. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the writ petition filed by the Management, the present appeal is filed.2. The case on hand has a long history. To be in brief, the appellant/Management used to award contract for breaking, sorting, loading and unloading of quartz every year by calling for the tenders. The contractors used to engage contract workers of their choice. In the year 1983, since there was an huge accumulation of quartz at VISL, it deckled to short close the contract awarded to the contractors and as such, the operation of the mines was closed with effect from 1.4.1983. In turn, the contractors terminated the services of the contract workers. Aggrieved by the same, the contract workers at one of the mines formed a union and raised an Industrial Dispute, which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal directed reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits.3. The appellant/Management challenged the award by way of writ petition. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR2115; 2008(3)KLT150; 2008(3)KCCR1484; 2008(4)AIRKarR480; AIR2008NOC2433; 2008AIHC3029(Kar)
N. Kumar, J.1. This petition/suit is filed for grant of letters of administration with a copy of the Will, which came into existence six hours prior to the death of the testator in ICU of the Hospital. By an order dated 1.3.2006 this Probate Petition was ordered to be converted into an original suit. Therefore, the parties to the proceedings are herein referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants in a suit.2. The first plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6 are brothers. Second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of the 6th defendant. 1st and 4th defendants are beneficiaries under the Will.3. Sri J.T. Ananthaswamy is the eldest brother of the first plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6. He died on 24.1.2003 at Mysore. He was a divorcee. He had no issues. The case of the plaintiffs is, that Sri J.T. Ananthaswamy has left an unregistered Will dated 24.1.2003 bequeathing all his properties in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4. Annexure-A to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(6)KarLJ588; 2008(3)KCCR1882; 2008(5)AIRKarR162; AIR2008NOC2494
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in the instant petition prays to withdraw and transfer M.C. No. 35 of 2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikmagalur to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Dharwad in the interest of justice and equity.2. The only grievance made out by petitioner in this petition is that, petitioner being a lady is not in a position to attend the Court as and when M.C. No. 35 of 2005 is posted for consideration before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikmagalur, on the ground that, she is staying with her parents at Dharwad and the distance between Chikmagalur and Dharwad is 300 km. and she cannot travel alone without the assistance of any male member and whereas, the respondent is concerned, he can appear before the Court if the matter is transferred to Dharwad and no hardship would be caused to him. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that, she has filed an application before the Court below in M.C. No. 35 of 2005...
Tag this Judgment!