Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments

Gad Industries, and anr. Vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank. Rep.by Authorized Of ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In this writ petition petitioners, are seeking the following reliefs:(i)To issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, in Case No.MAG(5)SARFAESI/20/2010-11 dated 06.01.2011 vide Annexure-A filed by theRespondent-Bank against the petitioner herein;(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or direct the Respondent-Bank from invoking the jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act and to proceed with the recovery subject to the findings of irregularities of the Bank and its employees with respect to the appropriation of the accounts by DRT in the recovery proceedings in OA 686/2010, and grant any other relief or relief in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. It is not in dispute that aggrieved by the possession notice issued, the petitioners had preferred S.A.No.384/2010 under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2002 (hereinafter referred...

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Pensioners Association, and ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The grievance of the second and third petitioners and of those pensioners, who are members of the first petitioner-Association, is that, R-1 BWSSB ('the Board* for short) had formulated its own pay scales for its employees and the same was implemented with effect from 1,7.1986. The pay scales were revised at different times and the revisions took place on 1.7.1990, 1.7.1994. 1.7.1998. 1.7.2003 and 1.7.2008. Consequent to the revision of pay scales with effect from the aforesaid dates, even the pension of the employees, who had retired from service, was also revised on two occasions i.e., 1.7.1990 and 1.7.1994. But, subsequently, no pension revision took place in respect of revision of pay scales effected from 1.7.1998 and 1.7.2003 and the latest being 1.7.2008.2. Apart from this, during 1998. R-1 Board classified the pensioners into two categories i.e., those who retired before 1.7.1990 and those who retired alter 1.7.1990. Thus, the pensioners, who are the members of the first peti...

Sri Sriramaiah, S/O Narayanappa, and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Medica ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are calling in question the Circular dated 31.12.2010 issued by the Commissioner, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka, vide Annexure-A. Petitioners are also calling in question the tender Notification dated 10.01.2011 issued by the District Surgeon. District General Hospital, Chikmagalur. vide Annexure-B.2. Petitioners claim that they have been participating in the tender process conducted under the Scheme known as 'Non- Clinical Services (Waste Management of Hospital)' involving supply of trained personnel for proper disposal of wastes hi hospitals to ensure maintenance of healthy environment. They are aggrieved by the Circular issued by the 1st respondent prescribing certain tender conditions. The impugned circular. has been issued by the Commissioner. Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka in order to streamline the tenders to be called for by the District Surgeons of different Hospitals i...

Ms. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner.

Court: Karnataka

1. The appellant herein is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. 1956. It carries the business of manufacture and sales of Machine Tools etc., It has employed several employees/workmen for its business. The workmen who have been employed in the Company have formed a Union which is Respondent No.2 herein. The Respondent No.2 Union by its letter dated 04¬04-2000 requested the appellant to recognise five workmen viz., 1) K.A.Ganganna, 2) K.M.Biddappa, 3) S.Shivanna. 4) T.Aswathnarayan and 5) Mallappa as 'Protected Workmen' for the year 2000-01 (01-05-2000 to 30-04-2001) under the provisions of Section 33 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter called as 'the Act') readwith Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules 1957 (hereinafter called as the Karnataka Rules". 2. As the request of the Union was not considered within a reasonable time, the Respondent No.2 Union raised a dispute in this behalf before Respondent No.l on 24-04-2000 an...

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Pensioners Association and o ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The grievance of the second and third petitioners and of those pensioners, who are members of the first petitioner-Association, is that, R-l BWSSB ('the Board’ for short) had formulated its own pay scales for its employees and the same was implemented with effect from 1.7.1986. The pay scales were revised at different times and the revisions took place on 1,7.1990, 1.7.1994. 1.7.1998. 1.7.2003 and 1.7.2008. Consequent to the revision of pay scales with effect from the aforesaid dates, even the pension of the employees, who had retired from service, was also revised on two occasions i.e., 1.7.1990 and 1.7.1994. But, subsequently, no pension revision took place in respect of revision of pay scales effected from 1.7.1998 and 1.7.2003 and the latest being 1.7.2008. 2. Apart from this, during 1998, R-1 Board classified the pensioners into two categories i.e., those who retired before 1.7.1990 and those who retired after 1.7.1990. Thus, the pensioners, who are the members of (he fir...

Canara Traders, Kerala Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR601(DB)

J.S. Khehar C.J. (Oral) 1. By an order dated 29.1.2011, on account of carrying goods, other than those for which a transport permit had been issued to the petitioner, he was imposed a fine. It is the case of the petitioner, that the aforesaid fine was deposited by him on 29.1.2011 itself, and despite the same, the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. KL-58-C-3360 has still not been released by the in-charge police station, Virajpete. 2. In the pre-lunch session, notice of the instant writ petition was issued to the respondents, and on our asking Mr. Kolle, learned Additional Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, having sought instructions, informs us during the course of hering in the post-lunch session, that the impounded vehicle has since been released to the petitioner. It is sought to be clarified, that it was released to the petitioner on the same day, on which the petitioner deposited ...

M/S. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., Rep by Its Asst. General Man ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These W.Ps. are filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the impugned order dated 16.09.2010 issued by the 2nd Respondent U/S. 39 of the KVAT Act, 2003, along with demand notice issued in form VAT 180, for the period from April 2006 to March 2009, IE., Annexure L and quash the same as without jurisdiction in as much as it is contrary to the Direction of the Hon’ble Court in W A. No 467/2010 and 2.A. Nos. 800-828/2010 and the decision of this Hon’ble court in STRP No. 117/2008 and is Arbitrary, Illegal and Ultra vires Sections 2(36), 4 and Section 30, of the Karnataka valued Added TAX Act 2003 read with Rule 31 of the KVAT rules and Articles 14, 19(1)(G), 265 and Entry 54 of list II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India In so far as Petitioner is concerned.) 1. Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order of the 2nd respondent at Annexure-L passed under Section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for shor...

The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District and Others Vs. Smt. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR595(DB)

J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral): 1. The following order was passed by this Court on 21.1.2011: “Learned Advocate General, while assailing the veracity of the impugned order dated 4.1.2011 which came to be passed in Writ Petition No. 32756/2010 contends, that the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge were wholly unjustified, on account of the fact, that the response of the respondents in the writ petition had not yet been obtained. It is submitted, that the actions taken at different stages by different officers will be explained before the learned Single Judge, by filing counter affidavit(s). whereupon, the learned Single Judge may from his view on the matter, based on equal opportunity to the rival parties. Notice to the respondents returnable for 4.2.2011. Let the respondents be served through the learned Counsel, who represented them before the learned Single Judge. In the meantime, directions issued to Karnataka Lokayukta shall remain in abeyance. List again on 4.2.2011R...

Smt. Renukamma and Others Vs. Smt. Radhamma and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This CRP filed u/s 115 of CPC, against the order dated 09-11-2009 passed in ma.17/2008, on the file of the Prl. District judge, Kolar dismissing the Petition and upholding the order dated 29-03-2008, passed in p and sc. No.15/2006, on the file of the Prl.Civil judge, (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Kolar partly allowing the Petition filed under sec.372 of Indian succession act.) 1. This revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order in M.A.17/08 dated 9.11.2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kolar, dismissing it and conforming the order passed by the trial court in P and SC.15/06 dated 29.3.2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Kolar. 2. Heard Sri Gowri Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Contextual facts which need reference are: a) Respondent no.1 herein along with two children filed a petition invoking Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate to administer the estate of V.M.Rangappa who, she claimed, was...

Madarsab and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

The appellants and the complainant-respondent are present before the Court. An application is sought to be filed under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to compound the offence, with the permission of the Court. 2. It is stated that the appellant No.1 and the complainant are brothers. Appellant No.2 is the wife of the appellant No.1 and sister-in-law of the Complainant. Appellant Nos.3 and 4 are sons of appellant No. 1 and Complainant is their uncle. Thus, the parties are closely related. 3. The Complainant, however, had lodged a complaint to the Ankalagi Police against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 354, 324, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court had convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the elders of the complainants’ village have intervened and have persuaded the appellants and the compl...