Karnataka Court June 2009 Judgments

State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary to Government Home Dep ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010CriLJ611

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioners.The respondents having been served have remained absent.The facts leading up to this petition are as follows:2. The first respondent is said to have filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the second respondent, alleging offences under Section 153-A, 295 and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The second respondent is the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and he wan alleged to have made certain statements at Chennai and these statements, which were said to have been published in Newspapers at Bangalore, formed the basis of the complaint.3. It transpires that when the matter came up before the Court of the Magistrate on 03.12.2007, the following order was passed as reflected in a copy of the order sheet dated 03.12.2007, as follows:Complainant present in view of Section 179 Cr.P.C. this Court is having jurisdiction which consequence happened at Madi...

The Indian Bank Rep. by Its General Manager Managing Director and Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. The appellant-Indian Bank has challenged in this appeal the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Bank to accept the option exercised by the respondents for family pension subject to the condition prescribed under the scheme.2. The husband of the respondent one Shivanna, was working in Indian Bank. He died on 11.11.1991 white in service. Subsequently, the Bank introduced Pension Scheme known as Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The Scheme was made applicable to all the employees who were in service of the Bank on or after first day of January 1986 but had retired before the first day of November 1993. The said Shivaona having died in November 1991, i.e., subsequent to First of January 1986 was entitled to pension under the said Scheme. After coming into force of the Scheme, employees or their representatives were required to exercise their option for pension within 120 days from the notified date namely 29.09.1995. The said 120 days time...

Central Silk Board Employees' Union (Registered), A Trade Union regist ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009(2)Kar2465

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. The petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 24.07.2008 at Annexure-E and for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to refer the dispute to the Central Industrial Tribunal and for such other reliefs, According to the petitioner, the petitioner is stated to have submitted a charter of demands on 06.11.2007 demanding the respondent to extend the revision of pay-scales and other allowances to the casual farm workers working throughout India. The respondents filed statement of objections before the Regional Labour Commissioner before whom the dispute was raised for which the petitioner-Union submitted an additional statement on 10.12.2007. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were held and there was failure of conciliation. As such the petitioner made a representation to the Central Government to refer the dispute to the labour court for adjudication. The Government has refused to refer the dis...

Sri Mallesha @ Malleshappa S/O Siddappa Vs. Sri S.S. Jagadeesh S/O Lat ...

Court: Karnataka

A.R. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. The appellant was the petitioner in MVC 725/2003 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chitradurga. He had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 1.6.2003 near Siddapura bus-stand of Chitradurga Taluk on account of alleged rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Reg. No. KA-14/A-8595 by its driver. The respondents were the owner and insurer of the said vehicle. It was averred that he has suffered loss on account of the Injuries sustained in the said accident which should be compensated by the respondents. The 1st respondent -owner remained absent and was placed ex parte by the tribunal. The respondent - Insurance Company contested the claim petition denying the averments made in the claim petition. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal raised the following issues for ...