Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments
Mohammed Iliyas S/O Khaji Abdul Hafiz. Vs. the Divisional Controller K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 1.1.2009 in Ref. No. 14/2006 passed by the labour Court at Bangalore.2. Petitioner was a driver in the respondent corporation. Petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 31.1.2002. Despite call notice, petitioner failed to report for duty. For misconduct of unauthorised absence, habitual unauiborised absence and indiscipline, articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and on 27.10.2003 an order of penalty dismissing the petitioner from service came to be passed. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, petitioner raised a dispute before the labour Court by way of reference under Section 10(1 )(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 1 the Act'). In addition to the points of reference the labour Court framed an additional issue relating to domestic enquiry. Before the labour Court respondent examined one witness as MW.1 and produced Exs. M 1 to M12. Petit...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Supreme Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.Shivaram Shetty S/O M.Seen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Karkala dated 28.11.2006 in 0.S.No.73/2005 wherein the appellant has been directed to pay to the respondent/plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5 lacs with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization.2. Facts leading to this case are as hereunder: Respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 5 lacs with interest at 18% p.a. contending chat in the month of October,1997 plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs by way of Demand Draft dated 8.10.1997 to the appellant-company and the company had agreed to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. since the amount was not paid plaintiff called upon the defendant to pay the same by got issuing legal notice dated 26.1.2000. Since an untenable reply was sent by the appellant, suit was filed to recover the same. Appellant contested the suit on the ground that the amount of Rs. 5 lacs was not paid by the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Sri K.Munishamappa @ Appi. S/O M.A.KrishnappA. Vs. Pragathi GramIn Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. This writ petition is tiled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notice dated 18.1.2011 issued by the DRT (Tribunal) vide Annexure-D vide DCP No.3853 and etc. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the notice dated 18.01.2011 issued by the Debts Recover Tribunal vide Annexure-D, thereby posting the matter for drawing up of proclamation of sale and settling the terms thereof in respect of the property which is the subject matter of mortgage. The impugned notice is issued in the recovery proceedings initiated in DCP No.3853 arising out of OA. No.229/2205 disposed of on 02.03.2005.2. Several contentions are urged by the petitioner contending interlia that the petitioner's unit has become a sick unit and as the petitioner bad suffered heavy loss In running the unit. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has prompiiy repaid Rs.27 iakhs and that a further sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid hoping that the bank will set...
Tag this Judgment!K.Shanmugam S/O Late Kumarswamy. Vs. Management of M/S.T.T.Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. This writ petition is filed calling in question the award dated 01.12.2006 in I.D.208/1994 passed by the Labour Court at Bangalore rejecting the dispute.2. Petitioner was working in the respondent company. For misconduct of habitual absence without leave, late coming to the office, dereliction of duty and indiscipline, articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and on 27.6.1994 petitioner was dismissed from service. Thereafter, petitioner gave a letter on 296.1994 to withdraw the order of dismissal and to accept his resignation. Accordingly, the respondents have withdrawn the order of dismissal and accepted the resignation submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute before die Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). On the basis of pleadings, die labour Court framed the following issues and additional issues:i) Whether DE is fair and proper?ii) Whether II party is justified in dismissing the f...
Tag this Judgment!Bayamma Vs. State Election Commissioner and Others
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
DR. K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J 1. Though the writ petition is listed for hearing on the applications filed for vacating interim order, with the consent of the Learned Counsels for the parties, heard arguments for final disposal. The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying for quashing the impugned Notification dated 27.01.2011 bearing No.“KARNATAKA” /07/“KARNATAKA”/2011 on the file of Respondent No.2 at Annexure–‘E’. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under: The petitioner claims that she is elected member of Aland Taluka Panchayath. She belongs to ST community and eligible to contest the election for the post of Adhyaksha of Aland Taluka Panchayath. After the election for the Taluka Panchayaths in the State of Karnataka was over, the Respondent No.2 has issued a Notification dated 25.01.2011 at Annexure- ‘A’ reserving the post of A...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.C. Radhakrishna Vs. Bangalore University and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records and quash the order of promotion dated 27.5.2009 vide Annexure-C and quash the order dated 24.7.2009 vide Annexure-C1 and quash the order dated 22.9.2009 vide Annexure C2 and quash the final seniority list of Professors dated 22.9.2008 vide Annexure-D and quash the order dated 6.6.2009 vide Annexure-E as the above orders suffer from the errors which are apparent on the face of the record and the same are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and etc.,) 1. Petitioner is questioning the Notifications issued by the 1st respondent-University vide Annexure-‘C’ dated 27.5.2009, Annexure – ‘C-1’ dated 24.7.2009, Annexure – ‘C-2’ dated 22.9.2009 and the seniority list vide Annexure – ‘D’ dated 22.9.2008, by filing this writ petition. 2. By virtue of Annexure – ‘...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co., Ltd. Represented by Divisional Office Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/s 30(1) of W.C. Act against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2005 passed in WCA:NFC 24:2000 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for workmen’s compensation, Kolar, awarding compensation of Rs. 49,406/- with interest at 12% and directing the appellant herein to deposit the same.) 1. The 2nd respondent insurance company in WCA.NFC.24 and 25/2000 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kolar has filed these appeals challenging the common order dated 29.10.2005 passed in the aforesaid two claim petitions so far as it pertains to fastening liability to pay compensation to claimants on it. 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as under: The case of claimants in NFC.24 and 25/2000 is that, claimant in 24/2000 Thimmappa is uncle and claimant in 25/2000 namely Narayanappa is nephew. They are employees under 1st respondent working as loaders in lorry bearing No.KA-03/A-1204 belonging to 1st respondent, insured with 2n...
Tag this Judgment!itc Limited and Another Vs. Union of India by Its Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
(This Writ Petition filed u/a 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash vide Annexure-U dt.12.08.2002 passed by R5 and etc.) In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of declare Section 2(e)(v) of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Public Premises Act’) as substituted by Amending Act 22 of 1999 as null and void, to quash the order dated 12.8.2002 passed by the fifth respondent as per Annexure-U, to quash the notice dated 19.11.2001 as per Annexure-Q and to declare the entire proceedings before the fifth respondent as without jurisdiction and for other reliefs. 2. The subject matter of this writ petition is property bearing No.25, Sankey Road, Bangalore (hereinafter called as ‘schedule property’). The schedule property originally belongs to one Aga Ali Askar and he executed a Will on 29.10.1880 and Codicil on 22.6.1887 bequeathing the schedule property for the benefit of Muslim c...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar Vs. State by Cottonpet P.S., Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
V. JAGANNATHAN, J : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by him under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the submission made by the petitioner’s Counsel is that, the petitioner is said to be one of the accused persons against whom a case is registered under Sections 120(b), 121 and 121A of the I.P.C. and Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and that he moved the Trial Court under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet by the I.O. within 90 days as required under law. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said application on the footing that the I.O. has sought time extension beyond 90 days upto 180 days. 2. Referring to the aforesaid factors and also relying on the decision of this Court reported in 2004 Crl.L.J. 1033 and the Madras High Court reported in 2005(2) Crimes 533, the submission made is that, on the date of the application filed by the petitioner under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Vinaya Alias Gandhi, S/O Biligiri. Vs. State by Akkur Police Station, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
1. All these petitions are by the accused who are involved in Cr. No. 188/10 for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC and the petitioners are A-12 (Crl.P.No.35/ 11). A 13 (Crl.P.No.518/11) and A-11 (Crl.P.No.503/11).2. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in respect of the alleged incident said to have taken place on 27.10.10 in the house of the complainant is the accused persons arc said to have assaulted Chikkegowda and caused some injuries and took away the gold and other ornaments and cash of Rs.25.000/- and also other articles. Submission made by the petitioner's counsel in common is that, these petitioners were not present when the alleged incident took place and moreover. A-13 is said to have given the information to other accused persons and A-12 is said to have given a weapon to other accused persons and as far as A-11 is concerned, only allegation against him is that, he also conspired with other accused in ensuring th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »