Karnataka Court December 2011 Judgments

Jayantha and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KarLJ258; 2012(1)KantLJ258

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. These petitions are heard and disposed of together by this common order as the issues that arise for consideration are identical.It is the case of the petitioners that they were initially engaged on daily wages in the year 1991 by the second respondent-Mangalore University and had continued till such time they were appointed on temporary basis as peons in the scale of pay 840-1340 as per the official memorandum dated 6-2-1995. This was continued from time to time for over two years. Thereafter, yet another office order was issued dated 10-6-1997 and they were placed on consolidated salary which effected their service conditions in time scale of pay which was converted into consolidated salary. The petitioners being aggrieved filed writ petition in W.P. No. 37787 to 37805 of 1997. Those petitions were disposed of by an order, dated 27-11-1998, issuing certain directions to the second responde...

High Court of Karnataka Bangalore Rep by Its Registrar General. Vs Aja ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KCCR133(DB); 2012(1)KantLJ617(DB); 2012(1)KarLJ617

SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J1. This criminal contempt of court case, registered suo motu by the registry of this court as per directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, a petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is praying for initiating contempt proceedings against the sole accused by name Ajaykumar Makhija, Ajay Clothing Industries, No 56, Tubinakere Industrial Area, Mandya District.2. A letter dated 23.2.2011, addressed to the Registrar of this court by one Abdul Rawoof s/o Ameer Jan, General Secretary, National Human Rights Services, Beemanahalli post, Devalapura hobli, Nagamangala taluk, Mandya district, is the basis on which this contempt petition has been registered.3. The letter discloses that the respondent-accused has displayed a board on the subject site at No.56, KIADB Industrial Area, Tubinakere village, Mandya district and prominently carrying the name of 'Ajay Clothing Industries' and also ...

High Court of Karnataka Bangalore Rep by Its Registrar General Vs. Aja ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This suo-motu Criminal Contempt of Court case is filed under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, R/W Article 215 of Constitution of India, praying to initiate Criminal contempt action against the accused and punish him in accordance with law and etc.,) SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J 1. This criminal contempt of court case, registered suo motu by the registry of this court as per directions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, a petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is praying for initiating contempt proceedings against the sole accused by name Ajaykumar Makhija, Ajay Clothing Industries, No 56, Tubinakere Industrial Area, Mandya District. 2. A letter dated 23.2.2011, addressed to the Registrar of this court by one Abdul Rawoof s/o Ameer Jan, General Secretary, National Human Rights Services, Beemanahalli post, Devalapura hobli, Nagamangala taluk, Mandya district, is the basis on which t...

Lumbini Gardens Limited, Bangalore Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalo ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent-Bank is taken on record. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners are calling in question the order dated 30-6-2011 passed in S.A. No. 257 of 2011 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. By the said order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs towards the loan amount due to the respondent-Bank. The 1st installment of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was directed to be paid on or before 7-7-2011 and the 2nd installment of Rs. 40.00 lakhs within a month’s time thereafter, that is to say, on or before 8-8-2011. The respondent-Bank was directed to defer all further proceedings till further orders. In the event of default in complying with the conditional order, the Tribunal has made it clear that the interim order granted will stand automatically vacated and it would be open to the respondent-Bank to decide the future course of action as they deemed fit. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners s...

Smt. Tulasmma K. and Others Vs. Jassaram and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. This is plaintiffs’ appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on the ground that within the period stipulated, the plaintiffs did not pay the deficit Court Fee. 2. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge. We cannot find fault with the said order, as sufficient opportunity was granted to the plaintiffs to pay the deficit Court fee. They have not paid the same within time nor have they sought for extension of time, nor appeared in Court and pleaded any difficulty. In those circumstances, the Trial Court had no option except to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. It is against the said decree, this appeal is filed. 3. In the appeal, they have paid the Court fee on memorandum of appeal. The Court fee ought to have been paid on the memorandum of plaint. The Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal is Rs.2,58,036.00. The plaintiffs c...

Geetha Lakshmi, Mandya District Vs. the Indian National Congress (i), ...

Court: Karnataka

(This Writ Appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P.No.22146/2011 (LB-ELE) dated 29/09/2011.)The appellant herein is assailing the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22146/2011 (LB-ELE). By the said order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. The consequence of such dismissal is that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 14.06.2011 disqualifying the appellant from the membership of the town Panchayath, Nagamangala, under Section 3(1)(a) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (for short the ‘Act, 1987’) is upheld, though the learned Single Judge arrives at the conclusion that the disqualification under Section 3(1)(b) would not be attracted. 2. Heard Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior counsel for Sri Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Basavaraj, Sri B. Veerappa, Additional Government Advocate and Sri R...

Gundappa M. Kummur Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. I.A. No. 1 of 2011 is filed by respondent 5 contending that the petitioner herein has questioned the validity and correctness of the communication dated 15-3-2011 issued by respondent 3 and the order dated 3-9-2011 passed by respondent 2 produced at Annexures-J and K respectively, relating to the appointment to the post of Principal in the Pre-University College, Jade, run by the fourth respondent-Management, apart from other directions and other reliefs sought, to the affect that respondents 1 to 3 ought to accord approval to the promotion as alleged to have been granted to the petitioner by the fourth respondent as Principal and to reckon the past services from the date of his initial appointment upto the date of approval with aid and for other consequential benefits. 2. This Court had ordered emergent notice on the petition to the respondents and had also passed an interim order directing the fourth respondent not to disturb the petitioner from the post of incharge principal, in ...

Smt. Ganga Patil and Another Vs. the Executive Engineer (Elecl.) O and ...

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

A.M. Bennur, Member These are the two appeals filed U/s 15 of the C.P.Act 1986 by the respective complainants in complaint No.191/2010 and 192/2010 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Gulberga being aggrieved with the order dated 31/03/2011. 2. As the consumer dispute raised in both the complaints being the same; OP being the same. In order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning, both these appears are heard together and disposed off by this common order. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3. Complainant in complaint No.191/2010 had a pair of bullocks, he is an agriculturist. Through his servant he sent the bullocks for grazing. On 03/10/2004 while passing through old Hebbal Village at 11.00 a.m., due to the fall of live electric wire passing through the said path, the bullocks got electrocuted and died at the spot. Immediately complaint was lodged to the police, they conducted mahazar and P.M. Then complainant made claim to the OP, it went in vain. ...

D. KariyappA. Vs. Thimmabovi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KCCR256(DB); 2012(1)KantLJ675(DB); ILR2011KAR5783; 2001(1)KarLJ675

(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P. No. 4245/2010 dated 01/02/2011.)1. This appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2011 passed in W.P. No. 4245/2010 (SC/ST) observing that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the land granted in favour of the original grantee was to a person belonging to the scheduled caste community, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.2. Before us, the matter has been canvassed in great detail. Our attention has been drawn to the original order passed in the writ proceedings at the first instance, whereby the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to determine whether the original grantee belongs to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. It was pursuant thereto that the order which led to the filing of W.P.No.4245/10 came to be passed by the Assistant C...

R. Ramanujam Vs. Senior Manager, M/S. by Design (Private) Limited, Ban ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Petitioner aggrieved by the award dated 28-2-2011 in Reference NO. 5 of 2008 of the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, rejecting the reference has presented this petition. 2. Petitioner claiming to be an ex-serviceman, joined the services of the respondent-company on 3-11-2005 as a Security Co-ordinator pursuant to the appointment order dated 1-11-2005, on wages of Rs. 8,500/-p.m. alleging illegal termination with effect from 30-3-2007 initiated conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ID’ Act), which, when, ended in failure report, the State Government by order dated 9-1-2008 referred the Industrial Dispute to the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, for adjudication, whence it was registered as Ref. No. 5 of 2008. Parties having filed their respective pleadings, the Labour Court framed an additional issue over whether the petitioner was a workman as defined under the Act. Parties let in evidence whence petitioner was examined a...