Karnataka Court December 2012 Judgments
Rudraguoda Vs. the Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C., Raichur
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
1. This writ petition is directed against the award in KID No.158/2011 dated 14.3.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga. 2. The petitioner had been working with the respondent Corporation as a Conductor. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him and it was alleged that he had not issued tickets to two passengers despite collection of the fare. After holding an enquiry, the Corporation dismissed him from service on 27.5.2011. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a claim petition before the Labour Court in KID No.158/2011. The Labour Court has dismissed the said petition by its order at Annexure-D dated 14.3.2012. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. It is not in dispute that an industrial dispute relating to charter of demands in I.D.No.148/2005 in which the workman is concerned is pending before the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore. The workman was dismissed from service during the pendency of the said dispute. It is also...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Yaseen Vs. Smt. Reshma and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
(This R.S.A. is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2010 passed in RA No.51/2007 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC-1, Bangalore Rural District, and etc.) 1. In this regular second appeal, the appellant is calling in question the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in R.A.No.51/2007 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the appellant – respondent No.1 herein and declaring that the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1993 passed in O.S.No.397/1992 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hoskote, was not binding on the plaintiff. 2. Appellant was the 1st defendant before the Trial Court. The 1st respondent Smt.Reshma wife of Jakir Khan was the plaintiff in O.S.No.131/1999, out of which the present second appeal arises. She had filed the suit seeking to set aside and cancel the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1993 passed in O.S.No.397/1992. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivasa @ Seen Vs. State of Karnataka, by Koramangala Police Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.A. is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the appellant/accused No.2 praying to set aside the judgment dated 13.6.2006 passed by the P.O., F.T.C.- VI, Bangalore, in S.C.No.585/2003 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence P/U/S. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.) This matter is listed for admission. Appeal is admitted. By consent of the parties, appeal is heard on merits. The appellant and one Nagaraju @ Naga were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC by the P.O., FTC - VI, Bangalore City, in SC No.585/2003 based on the charge sheet filed by Koramangala police. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.15-W.Nazrath is the husband, P.W.4-Vinitha D'Souza is the daughter of deceased Smt.Rita Nazarath; P.W.2-Franc D'Souza is the son-in-law of the deceased and husband of P.W.4. Some time prior to 17.4.2003, P.W.15 constructed a farm house in his land bearing Survey No.131 of Doddakannalli, Bangalore and after construc...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ivrcl-pjsc Lshp-pjsc Lgsh-dm Consortium Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
(This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India praying to call for the records and direct in the nature of mandamus declaring that the action of R2 opening the price bid of R3 on 10.11.12 is illegal and ab-initio void; Direct in the nature of mandamus declaring that the action of the R2 opening price bid of the R3 without there being proper tender from R3 is without jurisdiction and illegal; Direct in the nature of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is the only qualified bidder in the tender pursuant to the notice inviting tender dated 24.5.12 vide annx-d; etc.) Oral Judgment (Dilip B. Bhosale, J.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs : i) issue appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent in opening the price bid of the 3rd respondent on 10.11.2012 is illegal and ab-initio void, in the interest of justice. ii) Issue appropriate writ or order o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. K.T. Suchitra and Another Vs. the Registrar General, High Court o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
(Prayer: W.P.Nos.47868/2012 and 47869/2012 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the communication dated 9.11.2012 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-E and issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to issue admission ticket to take up the examination for the post of Civil Judges scheduled to be held on 8.12.2012.) 1. As these two writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. High Court of Karnataka invited applications by issuing a Notification bearing No.CJRC.1/2010 dated 6.8.2011, to fill 152 posts of “Civil Judges (the then Civil Judge (Junior Division)”, by direct recruitment. The said Notification was published in the Karnataka Gazette. Candidates desirous of applying to the notified posts were required to furnish the particulars in the prescribed form of applications (in duplicate) which were made available from the Office of the Secretary, Civil Judges Rec...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer M and Mip Vs. Neelkantappa and An ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
(Prayer: This MSA is filed under Section 54(2) of the LA Act, praying to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award dated 17.7.2010 passed in LAC.Appeal No.181/2009 on the file of the I Addl.District and Sessions/Special Judge, Gulbarga, in the interest of justice and equity.) 1. There is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal. Accepting the cause shown, delay of 52 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. I.A.No.1/2012 is allowed accordingly. 2. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment and award passed in LACA No.181/2009, by which the compensation is enhanced to Rs.75,543/- per acre. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the first appellate Court was not justified in condoning the delay of about 3172 days in filing the appeal and that the first appellate Court is not justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs.75,543/-. 3. Valid reasons are assigned by the Court below while condoning the delay. The claimants are entitled to similar compensatio...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer, M and Mip Vs. Rehemansab and Ano ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
(Prayer: This MSA is filed under Section 54 (2) of LA Act, against the judgment and award dated 15.04.2010 passed in LACA No.93/2009 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, At Gulbarga, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment and award dated 09.01.2001 passed in lac No.1496/1997 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Gulbarga.) 1. There is a delay of 477 days in filing the appeal. Accepting the cause shown, delay of 477 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. I.A.No.1/2012 is allowed accordingly. 2. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment and award passed in LACA No.93/2009, by which the compensation is enhanced to Rs.65,000/- per acre. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the First Appellate Court was not justified in condoning the delay of about 3162 days in filing the appeal and that the First Appellate Court is not justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs.65,000/-. 3. Valid reasons are assigned by the Court below while cond...
Tag this Judgment!K.L.E. Society Hospital Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the G.O. dated 6.11.2012 at Annexures-A and N passed by R1 in prohibition of strike and a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli or issue any other appropriate writ or direction, ect.) 1. Two Orders, both dated 6.11.2012, passed by the State Government; (1) prohibiting strike in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), vide Annexure-A, and (2) an Order of reference made under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Act, vide Annexure-N, have been assailed in this writ petition. 2. Material facts not in dispute are: The petitioner is a Trade Union. On 4.10.2012, vide Annexure-D, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent-Management, for resolving the grievances of the employees, otherwise, a protest dharana would be commenced from 8.10.2012. Annexure-D has a charter of 15 demands. The petitioner served a notice of strike...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›