Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-25-2011
(HRRP filed U/S 46(1) of K.R.Act, against the order dated: 31.5.2010 passed in HRC.No.95/2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, court of small causes, Bangalore, acting under Sec. 27(2)(o) of K.R.Act, ordering the respondent therein to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of petition schedule premises infavour of the petitioner therein with in 3 months from the date of this order, failing which, the petitioner therein is at liberty to seek delivery of possession.) This revision is against the order of eviction dated 31.5.2010 in H.R.C.No.95/2006 on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The factual matrix surfacing from the material on record is: a) Smt.Ayesha Mohiddin, the respondent herein, sought eviction of the petitioner invoking the provisions of clauses (a), (e) and (r) of Section 27(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity), on the premise she is the absolute owner o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-26-2011
(This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.) Mother of the petitioner, Smt.K. Shamba (for short ‘the deceased’) was working as a Sheristedar in the Court of Civil Judge, Mangalore. While she was working on deputation basis w.e.f. 14.10.1986, in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), expired on 17.05.1987. At the time of her death, petitioner was a minor. After attaining the age of 18 years, having passed SSLC, petitioner submitted a representation to the Tribunal, for appointment on compassionate ground, which was forwarded on 22.09.2000, for further action, to the Registrar General of High Court of Karnataka. Service particulars of Smt. Shamba having been called for by the 1st respondent, the District Judge, D.K. Mangalore on 16.12.2000, requested the Registrar of the Tribunal, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-23-2011
1. Petitioner an employer within a meaning of the definition of the said term under Section 2(e) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act), in relation to the establishment covered under the said V. failed to pay in full the contributions, within the lime stipulated, for the period 1996-1907 10 2000-2001, whence, the notice dated 18 11.2005 was issued to show-cause as to why damages for belated remittance should not be recovered, invoking Section 14-B of the Act. Opportunity of personal hearing though extended on several days of hearing, one Sri. L.S. Ramesh armed with a letter of authority represented the petitioner before the Provident Fund Commissioner. The enquiry revealed that there was short remittances in Account No. 1 for the period 12/98 to 2/2001 and the dues were yet to be remitted. 2. In the hearing held on 16.10.2006, the authorised representative of the petitioner admitted the contents of the checklist to be correct in so ...
Tag this Judgment!