Karnataka Court May 2008 Judgments
C.M. Ibrahim Vs. Tata Sons Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ228
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 11748/2004 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore.2. The respondent contends that on 24-3-2004 the petitioner held a press meeting at Bangalore and made defamatory allegations against the respondent - Tata Sons Limited ('the Company' for short). The allegations made by the petitioner came to be reported in the press on 25-3-2004 in two daily English Newspapers, that is The Times of India and The Asian Age. The Times of India, in its edition reported as under:Speaking to reporters here, Ibrahim said : When I was civil aviation minister, Deshpande, conspired with the Tatas to get permanent ownership of 2,200 acres of land they also tried to bribe me to permit this.The Asian Age reported as under:Former Union civil aviation minister C. M. Ibrahim on Wednesday threw a bombshell by claiming that major and medium industries minister R.V. Deshpand...
Tag this Judgment!G. Chandrashekar and ors. Vs. the Management of Sunrise Industries Rep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1121]; 2008(6)KarLJ334; (2009)IILLJ186Kant; 2008(4)KCCR2189; 2008(6)AIRKarR96
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the common award dated 19.11.2002 in A.I.D. Nos. 33, 37, 38, 39. 40 and 41/2001 and an order dated 15th September 2001 passed in the said disputes.2. Petitioners raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of dismissal dated 11.2.1988.3. Case of the petitioners is that, the respondent - Management served an order of suspension dated 23.7.1986 and thereafter, issued show cause notice dated 12.8.1986 and an enquiry was conducted on the basis of complaint made on 23.7.1986 by co-employee namely, one Yogananda without complying with the procedure prescribed and without giving an opportunity. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report and based on the same, Management passed an order of dismissal. The Management failed to take into consideration the application filed by it, seeking permission under Section 33 Sub-section (2) Clause (b) of the Act pe...
Tag this Judgment!Sri V.T. Jayavelu S/O V.M. Thirugnana Chetty Vs. Sri Nisar Ahmed S/O L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)KCCR2312; 2008(5)AIRKarR378; AIR2008NOC2824
Subhash B. Adi, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13th December 2002 in O.S. No. 15131/1999.2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial court.3. Respondent - plaintiff sought for decree for delivery of actual vacant possession of schedule property and for damages at Rs. 10,000/- per month.4. Case of the plaintiff was that, he had filed H.R.C. No. 10040/1996 before the Additional Small Causes Judge under Section 21(1)(h), (j) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the defendant. However, the said petition was dismissed in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act and also in view of the decision of the Apex Court upholding the validity of Section 31, as the rent of the schedule property was more than Rs. 500/- and it was let out for commercial purpose. It is also alleged that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by legal notice dated 30th December 1998. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Mohanlal S/O Late M. Harakchand, Mohan Cloth Corporation Vs. B.N. V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KLJ566
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal has boon filed by the appellant-defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 13-11-2001 passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 2798/1993.2. The facts of the case in brief is: the respondent-plaintiff claims that he is the owner of non-residential premises i.e., shop cum godown situated in property bearing No. 15 & 16, New No. 32/2, Sunkalpet Main Road, Bangalore; that the said premises was leased to Late M. Harakchand, father of the appellant-defendant on a rent of Rs. 610/- per month and the tenancy was a monthly tenancy according to English calendar commencing from 1st day of very month. As the plaintiff requires the suit schedule premises for his own use and occupation, he filed eviction petition in HRC No. 2066/1996 before the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore which came to be dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 28-11-1997 in view of the judgment of the Apex Court regarding validity of Section 31 of the Karnataka Ren...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Antibiotics and anr. Vs. National Commission Sc and St ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3305; 2009(3)KarLJ481; ILR2008(3)Kar3305; 2008(3)KCCR1901
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the directions dated 11.9.2006 issued by the second respondent directing the third respondent to reinstate the fourth respondent into service and also to extend him other benefits.2. The third respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act and jointly owned by the Government of India and Government of Karnataka. Fourth respondent was a Senior Manager in the third respondent company. On 29.01.2004 the third respondent company issued articles of charges to the fourth respondent stating that he indulged in corrupt practices, neglected to discharge his duties, acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company, indiscipline, made false statement before superiors, favouritism for pecuniary benefit etc. The fourth respondent submitted his reply on 10.02.2004 denying the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfie...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Sreenivasa Rao S/O S.V. Nagaraja Rao Vs. Central Silk Board Repre ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ224; 2008(4)KCCRSN296; 2008(6)AIRKarR200
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 46237 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.2. The appellant is an employee of the 1st respondent-Central Silk Board, Disciplinary action was initiated against him by the respondents and Annexure-A Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputations dated 04.11.1991 were served on the appellant. Since the explanation submitted by the appellant was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted in the matter. Though the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not proved against the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and held that the appellant was guilty and imposed the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. Though the appellant filed appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the orde...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Ravindra and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ115
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the advertisement dated 24-9-2001, inviting the applications from eligible candidates to certain posts in the Central Laboratory situated Nagpur, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb services of the petitioners with effect from 11-5-1989 and for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents to shift the institute or its Central Laboratory from Kolar Gold Fields to Nagpur.2. 3rd respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'BGML') is a company engaged in gold mining activity at Kolar Gold Fields (for short, 'KGF'). BGML had several departments and one such department was the Research and Development (for short, 'R and D Department'). This R and D Department consisted of research in rock mechanics, seismology, material testing and dust investigation. The Government of India with an object that results of activities of R and D Department of BGML ...
Tag this Judgment!Mulder (India) Private Limited Rep. by Its. Managing Director Vs. Alem ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)AIRKarR133; AIR2008NOC2493
K. Ramanna, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff has come before this Court challenging order dated 08-12-2003 passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 15623/2000 returning the plaint in the said suit to the plaintiff, for presentation before the proper court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred in their ranks assigned to them before the triad court.3. The brief facts of the case is that, the plaintiff is a industrial unit in Bangalore, manufacturing and supplying indentors, labels of decorative laminations called 'Decals Transfers' for transferring such labels on to glass and ceramic waxes at their manufacture by the respective manufacturers of such wares. The first defendant company is manufacturing and selling varieties of glassware globally with its subordinate offices located country-wide, including in Bangalore; that the defendants after negotiations with the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Khimaji Manji Patel S/O Manji Patel Vs. the Karnataka Power Transm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)AIRKarR218; AIR2008NOC2564
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is by a consumer of power who had been provided electricity connection by the respondents for irrigation purpose.2. It appears the authorities on information and being of the view that the consumer was misutilising the power by drawing water and selling it for a price i.e., using the power for trading or business purpose, as water was being sold on commercial lines, back billed the subscriber demanding charges payable commensurate to power provided to subscribers for commercial operations. A demand was raised in terms of demand note dated 20.4.2000 (Annexure-B) calling upon the petitioner to remit the charge of Rs. 1,04,433/-.3. The demand notice also provided option to the subscriber to file objections, if any, within a period often days. Though it had been characterised as an appeal it appears there was some contusion as to the meaning of such demand notice particularly, as to whether it could be treated as show cause notice or a fin...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathy S/O Hanumanth Naik by Gangu W/O Ganapathy Naik and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(9)KarLJ65
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.6.2003 - annexure A passed by the Land Tribunal Kumta in respect of the scheduled lands and also to issue a writ of mandamus to register the petitioners as occupants of the petition schedule lands under Section 48A of the Land Reforms Act to an extent of 1/3rd share in all the petition schedule properties and to reject the application of 4th respondent Bhavani W/o Gangadhar Naik claiming exclusive right over Sy. No. 506/1C of Kumta Village.2. Originally one Venku Narayana Naik the grand father of the petitioners and the contesting respondents was in actual possession of the schedule lands as a tenant from 1931-32 and in this regard, RTC is produced at annexure B. He had four sons by name Hanumantha, Masti, Devappa and Lakshman. Petitioners 1 to 3 are the sons of Hanumanth and petitioners 4 to 7 are the children of Laxman Venku Naik. Respondents 2 to 6 are the legal rep...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »