Karnataka Court December 2011 Judgments

Subraya Bhat Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

1. This petition is by the landlord. Suffice it to note the lands held by him vested with the State Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Tahsildar-respondent 2 determines the amount payable to the petitioner at Rs.1,08,453/- with interest at 5.5% p.a. The petitioner was aggrieved by the interest awarded at the rate of 5.5% and he questions the same before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, having regard to the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No.20929 of 1992, decided on 13-7-2000 directed the Tahsildar to consider the claim of the petitioner the reference to the decision therein. It appears, the second respondent did not consider the said direction for considerable period of time. Hence, legal notice was issued. Thereafter, an endorsement was issued. A copy of which is produced at Annexure-A indicating that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the said orders as he was not a party to those proceedings. 2. Mr....

ZaIn Sheriff Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the look out circular issued against his father. The father of the petitioner is a citizen of India and he holds a passport duly issued by the Indian Government bearing passport No. G0020806. The father of the petitioner is presently staying in Dubai. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was married to one Sadaf Sheriff. In view of differences between them, certain criminal as well as civil proceedings including matrimonial case for divorce have been instituted between then and the said cases are pending. Out of them, Crime No.196 of 2011 is registered against the petitioner and his family members including the father of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Crime No.255 of 2011 is registered against the petitioner’s father by the petitioner’s father-in-law, petitioner’s wife and others. These cases are pending before the 5th respondent-P...

New Goodluck Recreation Association, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for both the parties that similar matters are disposed of holding that as long as lawful recreational activities are carried on by the association such as the petitioner, there would be no requirement in law for taking permission from the police department either under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 or under any other licensing order. Therefore, this matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent for both the parties. 3. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the internal activities of the petitioner in the matter of carrying on the recreational activities and that the respondent-authorities be directed not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain licence either under the Police Act or under the Licensing and controlling of Places of Public Amusement (Bangalore City) order, 2002 to run the...

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

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KantLJ498; 2012(1)KarLJ498

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 as W.W. 1 and ...

Chikkaramaiah. Vs. the Divisional Controller.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KarLJ693; 2012(1)KantLJ693

1. Petitioner when appointed as a casual worker in the respondent-Public Road Transport Corporation with effect from 25-8-2004 pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court to treat him as a casual labour, a position, which he held prior to removal from service, alleging entitlement to regularisation, had his cause espoused through a Trade Union, which initiating conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ending in a failure report, whence the State Government by order dated 20-12-2007 referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, for adjudication, registered as I.D.No.280/2007. The point of dispute referred for adjudication was whether the Trade Union were justified in making a demand for regularisation of the petitioner's service in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation. Petitioner having filed claim statement, was resisted by filing counter statement of the respondent-Road Transport Corporation. The Industrial Tribunal having regard to the admit...

ZaIn Sheriff. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KarLJ626; 2012(1)KantLJ626

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the look out circular issued against his father. The father of the petitioner is a citizen of India and he holds a passport duly issued by the Indian Government bearing passport No. G0020806. The father of the petitioner is presently staying in Dubai.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was married to one Sadaf Sheriff. In view of differences between them, certain criminal as well as civil proceedings including matrimonial case for divorce have been instituted between then and the said cases are pending. Out of them, Crime No.196 of 2011 is registered against the petitioner and his family members including the father of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Crime No.255 of 2011 is registered against the petitioner's father by the petitioner's father-in-law, petitioner's wife and others. These cases are pending before the 5th respondent-Pulikeshinagar Polic...

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Gaffar Kha ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Petitioner- Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dated 15-5-2010 insofar as it relates to exercise the discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ID Act’) to interfere with the order of dismissal to modify the punishment to one of a lesser punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect without back wages and consequential benefits, but with continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits not including increment, promotion, etc. has presented this petition. 2. There is no dispute that the respondent, a driver in the petitioner-Public Road Transport Corporation remained unauthorized absent from 2-3-2005 to 31-5-2006, for a year and two months, following which disciplinary proceeding was initiated, domestic enquiry held extending responsible opportunity of hearing followed by a report holding the charge proved, resulting in the order dated 19-7-2006 dismissing the respondent from the service. It...

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore. Vs. Gaffar Kh ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KantLJ501; 2012(1)KarLJ501

1. Petitioner- Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dated 15-5-2010 insofar as it relates to exercise the discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ID Act') to interfere with the order of dismissal to modify the punishment to one of a lesser punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect without back wages and consequential benefits, but with continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits not including increment, promotion, etc. has presented this petition.2. There is no dispute that the respondent, a driver in the petitioner-Public Road Transport Corporation remained unauthorized absent from 2-3-2005 to 31-5-2006, for a year and two months, following which disciplinary proceeding was initiated, domestic enquiry held extending responsible opportunity of hearing followed by a report holding the charge proved, resulting in the order dated 19-7-2006 dismissing the respondent from the service. It is also not i...

Subraya Bhat. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KarLJ688; 2012(1)KantLJ688

1. This petition is by the landlord. Suffice it to note the lands held by him vested with the State Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Tahsildar-respondent 2 determines the amount payable to the petitioner at Rs.1,08,453/- with interest at 5.5% p.a. The petitioner was aggrieved by the interest awarded at the rate of 5.5% and he questions the same before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, having regard to the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No.20929 of 1992, decided on 13-7-2000 directed the Tahsildar to consider the claim of the petitioner the reference to the decision therein. It appears, the second respondent did not consider the said direction for considerable period of time. Hence, legal notice was issued. Thereafter, an endorsement was issued. A copy of which is produced at Annexure-A indicating that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the said orders as he was not a party to those proceedings.2. Mr. ...

Smt. Hema Alias Hemalatha Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. It is stated in the petition, the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her and she has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to abide by all conditions that may be imposed. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for grant of Anticipatory bail. 3. It is alleged, that on 31-3-2011, at about 4.00 p.m., A1-Raju and deceased Arjun went to H.D. Kote in a bike to see A5-Lakharam. At about 10 p.m., A1 and deceased left to Hullahalli. On the way near Kapila river bridge Arjun died. At about 10.30 p.m., A1-informed A5 that Arjun met with an accident near Kapila River bridge and died. Thereafter, the dead body was shifted to H.D. Kote Hospital. A5-informed the complainant. The complainant went to hospital and saw the dead body of Arjun and noticed injury on the head. The complainant and community people forced A1 to reve...