Karnataka Court August 2009 Judgments

Smt. B.S. Leelavathi Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ710

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition though posted for orders on an application to produce documents, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order.2. The short question that arises for decision-making is whether the Deputy Commissioner, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the Act'), was justified in eschewing the material document marked as page Nos. 116 and 154 in the Darkast file, maintained by the Tahsildar, North Taluk, an enclosure to the application dated 2-1-1969 of T. Mariyappa for grant of land as a political sufferer, being the copy of the Caste Certificate dated 7-8-1968 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Bangalore Urban certifying that the grantee belongs to Bunda-Besta Community included in the Nomadic and semi-nomadic tribe3. The learned Government Cou...

Bharat Electronics Ltd. by Its General Manager (Personnel) Vs. Udayash ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These two petitions have bee filed assailing the award dated 16-2-2004 and 22-10-1999 respectively passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref. No. 198/1987 treating the order of dismissal as compulsory retirement as on 10-4-1985.2. It is alleged that the first party workman committed theft of various electronic items and concealed in the lockers. On inspection it was found that he had unauthorisedly hidden in all about 13 articles belonging to the petitioner-Company. An enquiry was held and he was dismissed from service. The said order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court by its impugned award has modified the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement. Hence, these two writ petitions by the Company as well as by the Workmen,3. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.4. It is submission of the learned Counsel for the workman that this locker was in joint possession of two or more persons. Althou...

Management of Integrated Electric Company Pvt. Ltd. by Its Managing Di ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These two petitions have been filed assailing the award of the I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in ID 17/1996 - one by the management aggrieved by the award of reinstatement and payment of back wages and another by the workmen seeking for extension of all consequential benefits including full back wages and also to quash the finding of the inquiry proceedings as also the finding that the inquiry conducted is fair and proper.2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of electrical rotating machines. Management has engaged about ISO employees. Out of them, some of them have joined the CITU Union and the remaining persons are not members of any Union. The workman along with others intended to form an Union questioning the activities of the management in exploiting the workmen, non-payment of clearness allowance and uniform etc. When the management was requested to stop those activities and to treat die workmen properly, management has taken severe stops to k...

Smt. Akkamma W/O H.B. Ramesh Vs. Sri. M. Balakrishna S/O N.S. Manjegow ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. In these three petitions, the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8-6-2009 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-C and also to confirm the order passed by the Controlling Authority at Annexure-A.2. These petitioners are claiming themselves to be the employees under the first respondent stating that they served for more than 10 years and they were refused employment illegally without paying any terminal benefits. The petitioners approached the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity. The Controlling Authority allowed their applications filed by the workmen. Assailing the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Controlling Authority an the ground of delay as well as on merits. The same has been assailed in these three petitions.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.4. According to the learned Counsel for...

N. Vijaya @ Ameen S/O K.S. Naganna Vs. State of Karnataka by East Poli ...

Court: Karnataka

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 10/2005 on the file of Fast Track Court, Chamarajanagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) has challenged in this appeal correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.8.2006 passed in the said case convicting him for the offences under Sections 366/34, 323/34, 376/34 and 506 Part II/34 of I.P.C. and Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and sentencing him to undergo rigourous imprisonment for various periods and also to pay fine of various amounts as stated in the impugned order of sentence.2. Heard the arguments of Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused and also Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and also the entire material found in the original records obtained from the Trial Court.3. On appreciation of oral evidence of PW1 to PW12, the documents a...

Huchuraya Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ507

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. In both the petitions, petitioners claimed that, the case has been registered against them in Crime Nos. 144 and 119 of 1989 for the offence punishable under Sections 198 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, they had produced false caste certificate. Based on which they had sought for service benefits. It is submitted that, Government has issued a Notification dated 11-3-2002, inter alia dropping the prosecution in respect of the allegation of production of false caste certificate seeking the service benefits subject to surrender of caste certificate and not claiming any benefit under the same.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, petitioners have surrender the caste certificate and they are not making any claim or benefit under the reserved category.4. In view of the same, these peti...

S.B. Sreenivasarao and anr. Vs. Government of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ123

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioners are challenging the communication dated 18-2-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent informing them that their lands are being acquired resorting to the urgency clause provided under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of forming underground drainage in Shikaripura Town.2. In the impugned communication-Annexure-A, reference is made to Section 4(1) Notification dated 10-11-2008. As the petitioners expressed apprehension through their learned Counsel that they are likely to be dispossessed, notice was ordered to the respondents.3. Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the final declaration is not yet issued. In these circumstances, it is clear that the petitions filed are premature, as the challenge has to be against the final declaration, if and when the same is issued. Merely because the respondent-Housing Board has resorted to the provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, petitioners cannot approach this ...

Rasulbai and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, City Municipal Council and ors ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3610

H.G. Ramesh, J.1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners on the maintainability of the Writ Petition. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 29-8-2008 (Annexure-E) passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 425/2007 and 1182/2007. In our opinion, the High Court, acting in its judicial capacity, cannot be said to be an authority subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court itself under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, no writ petition would lie against an order passed in a Criminal Petition by a Learned Single Judge of this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.Petition dismissed....

K.V.R. Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010[17]STR6

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner carries on construction activity and in the process though not liable to pay service tax under Finance Act, 1994, nevertheless paid amounts through T.R.-6 challans as detailed below:------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No TR 6 Challan No. Date Amount Paid------------------------------------------------------------------1. 2005-06 14-12-2005 2381272------------------------------------------------------------------2. 2005-06 14-12-2005 1246075------------------------------------------------------------------3. 2005-06 7-1-2006 2396592------------------------------------------------------------------4. 2005-06 20-4-2006 841500------------------------------------------------------------------5. Nil 8-7-2006 1077120------------------------------------------------------------------6. 2006-07 9-12-2006 1830560------------------------------------------------------------------7. 2006-07 5-1-2007 2665872------------------...

Hema Reddy S/O Late Anjanappa Reddy Vs. the Management of Ksrtc Rep. b ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi. G. Ramesh, J.1. This petition is by the workman assailing the award passed by the Indl. Tribunal, Mysore in Ref. No. 141/03 dated 8.1.07.2. Petitioner is working as a driver under the respondent-Corporation. He was issued with an articles of charge alleging that he had caused an accident of the vehicle bearing No. 2446 on 15.11.01 which has resulted in damage to the Vehicle to the tune of Rs. 16286/-. On rejecting his reply, after holding enquiry, having found him guilty, the Management has imposed the punishment of reducing his pay by two incremental stages permanently apart from recovery of the damages. He was also issued with a charge sheet in respect of another case alleging that while on duty on 16.12.01 he carried two passengers without valid tickets and denying the reply the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of postponing the annual increment of the petitioner for a period of one year. As against these orders, the workman sought a reference. The Indl. Tr...