Karnataka Court July 2008 Judgments
Shaikh Dawood Vs. the Divisional Controller, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR3287
Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The appellant workman herein has challenged the order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 1.7.2005, passed in WP 40505/99 (LK) that was filed by the respondent herein viz., the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Raichur Division, Raichur, allowing the said writ petition and setting aside the award of the Labour Court, Gulbarga dated 18.5.1999 passed in Ref. No. 87/97 directing the respondent-employer to reinstate the appellant workman, and restoring the order dated 16.12.1983 passed by the respondent-Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority dismissing the appellant workman from his service as Driver on the ground of mis-conduct.2. The case of the respondent-Corporation (employer) as could be gathered from the Articles of charge that were framed against appellant-workman and the enquiry conducted against him is as under:On the night of 9.4.1980, the appellant, being driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. MEF-8054 drove the said bus from Raich...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Murthy Vs. Amruthraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4629; 2009(2)KarLJ98
1. This Revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 19.8.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-ll, Mandya, in Crl.A.No.86/2004 dismissing the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein and affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna in CC NO.457/2003, convicting the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the N.I Act') and sentencing him to ur/tergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine ot Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and also directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant being the value of the choque.2. The respondent herein is the complainant before the learned Magistrate. I shall refer to the parties herein with reference to their ranking i...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Shivaram Kundapurkar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1120; 2009(1)KarLJ538; 2008(4)KCCRSN290
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioners/residents of Kundapur in respect of residential premises, are before this Court, praying to strike down the word 'City' in Part B of the First Schedule (areas to which Chapters I to III and V to VIII apply) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, 'the Rent Act') or in the alternative direct the respondent 1-State of Karnataka to extend the provisions of Chapters V to VIII of the Rent Act to the areas situated within Kundapur Town Municipal Council.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition may be stated as under:The petitioners claim that they are tenants residing within limits of Kundapur Town Municipality. The landlords have filed suits as against the petitioners for their ejectment from the premises on the ground that Chapter VI (Regulation of Eviction) of the Act is not applicable to the premises.The petitioners have common grievance in not applying the Regulation of Eviction (Chapter VI) of the Rent Act to K...
Tag this Judgment!State by Garag Police, Dharwad. Vs. Dyamavva, W/O Sri Yallappa Madar, ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jul-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)KCCR3593(DB)
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 28.2.2003 passed by the Fast Track Court, Dharwad, in S.C.No.137/2001, acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ('the Act' for short), present appeal Is filed by the State.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case, as per the prosecution story are, as follows:Accused No.3 Is the son of Accused No.l and 2. Deceased Manjavva, daughter of PWs.15 and 16 Smt.Kashawa and Ssdeppa Kariyappa Madar, was married to accused Mo.3 on S.4.2000. According to the prosecution, at the time of marriage talks, there was demand of dowry both In the form of cash as well as gold ornaments and after negotiations, the accused agreed to accept cash of Rs.5,000/- and gold weighing 2-1/2 tholas. It is the case of the prosecution that though initially, the relationship between the deceased and her husband and in-laws was cordial, later on they started ill-...
Tag this Judgment!Nsoft (India) Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bescom Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3787; 2009(6)KarLJ509; 2009(4)AIRKarR98
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this Writ Petition two contracts awarded to the second respondent and sought for quashing of the same. The first contract is in respect of spot billing and collection in BESCOM Sub-Divisions. Second contract refers to maintenance of billing software.2. The first respondent floated a tender inviting bids for Total Revenue Management of Billing and Collection of BESCOM Sub-Divisions in respect of 4 lots. The common qualifying requirements were stipulated for all the Lots. The petitioner was one such bidder and so also the second respondent. Petitioner's bid was not accepted whereas the second respondent's bid was accepted. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent did not possess the requisite qualification, namely three years experience of providing similar services in any electricity supply utility in India. The second respondent contended that they do possess the three years qualification. The first respondent ha...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. C.S. Anilkumar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1419; ILR2008KAR4163; 2009(1)KarLJ171; 2008(4)KCCR2399
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal is by the insurer of a motor vehicle. The first respondent while proceeding in a motor vehicle, which was insured by the appellant had suffered injuries as a result of an accident. After treatment, the said respondent had lodged a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, wherein the appellant was arraigned as the insurer of the offending vehicle apart from the owner and the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal having allowed the claim petition had held that the appellant, as the insurer of the offending vehicle was liable to meet the claim. It is this which is under challenge.2. The Counsel for the appellant would submit that the policy of insurance in the present case is known as 'liability only policy'. It is a Standard Form Contract and forms part of the India Motor Tariff. Notwithstanding that the fully worded contract may not have been produced before the Tribunal, the contract would clearly absolve the appellant-insurer a...
Tag this Judgment!Puttaraja and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ121; 2008(4)KCCR2424
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition by residents of Yarehalli Village who also happen to be the members of the second respondent-Yarehalli Milk Producers Co-operative Societies, Yarehalli is for issue of a writ of mandamus to compel the third respondent-Election Officer and Co-operative Development Officer, Yarehalli Milk Producers Co-operative Societies to continue and to complete the elections for electing the committee of Management to the Society which had been notified in terms of the calendar of events dated 13-2-2008 and which had been postponed indefinitely by the very Election Officer in terms of his order dated 21-3-2008 on the premise that there was a law and order situation, likelihood of breach of peace in the area and therefore the elections were stalled.2. While the State of Karnataka figures as first respondent, the Society itself figures as second respondent, the Election Officer so appointed by the fourth respondent-Assistant Registrar in exercise of h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Pro Seal Closures P. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2009]314ITR132(KAR); [2009]314ITR132(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bangalore, dated February 7, 2001, and the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in I. T. A. No. 390/Bang/2001, dated February 20, 2004, for the assessment year 1996-97.2. The only point in dispute before the Assessing Officer was while computing deduction under Section 80HHC, whether the loss incurred by the assessee for the previous years has to be given set off or not. The Assessing Officer while passing an order of assessment held that the loss sustained by the assessee for the earlier years should be given set off. But, it was contended by the assessee that the loss sustained in the previous years need not be given set off. The contention of the assessee was overruled by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, an order of assessment was passed.3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal b...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore International Airport Limited Represented by Its Head - Lega ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3618; 2009(2)KarLJ209; 2008(4)KCCR2418
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order passed by the 1st respondent-Karnataka Information Commissioner dated 14.05.2008 as per Annexure-C declaring the petitioner as a Public Authority' as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The petitioner is a public limited company. It is not a Government Company as defined under Section 117 of the Companies Act, 1956. The 2nd respondent herein by name Sri Benson Issac filed an application under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act seeking suo moto publication of the information in respect of the petitioner as provided under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. The petitioner replied stating that it is not a 'Public Authority' as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act and hence it was not required to make such a publication under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent moved the Kamataka Information Commissioner (for sh...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Mohan Vs. Common Entrance Test Cell and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3861; 2009(1)KarLJ638; ILR2008(3)Kar3861
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed on 15.4.2006 - Annexure - A and also for a mandamus to refund the fee paid to the 1st respondent by the petitioner or in the alternative, to direct the 2nd respondent to refund the entire fee paid by the petitioner and also to declare Rule 17(2) of the Selection of Candidates for admission to professional Institutions, 2005 as arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution.2. The petitioner's daughter had appeared for the CET, 2005 for admission to Medical/Engineering course. She was allotted a seat in K.S. Hegde Medical college, Mangalore in the year 2005. She had paid Rs. 1,72,000/- for the medical seat through the CET Cell and also got admitted to Hegde Medical Academy by paying the registration and other fees and also got admitted to the college hostel by paying Rs. 20,000/-. According to the petitioner, her daughter could not continue her education due to health reasons and also for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »