Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2078
ORDERBopanna, J.1. This Writ Petition completes the triology of cases between the Petitioner/Union and the Cement Manufacturers' Association (the 2nd respondent herein) and the Indian National Cement and Allied Workers Federation (the 4th respondent herein). The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in the year 1978 in Writ Petition No. 7008 of 1981. But, this Court did not grant the reliefs prayed for since the petitioner had approached this Court at a belated stage. The petitioner approached this Court again in Writ Petition No. 6346 of 1982 challenging the validity of the Notification made by the Central Government under Section 10A(3A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) as also the award made by the Arbitrators chosen by the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent respectively on the demands raised by the 4th respondent. This Court by its Order dated 6-7-1984 quashed the Notification impugned therein and issued a Writ in the nature of mandamus to the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR3518
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Bill dated 21-1-1989 bearing No. BNHT 2 issued by the second respondent produced as Annexure-J. It has also sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount of Rs. 91,02,646-40p. from the petitioner as demanded under the aforesaid Bill Annexure-J.2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,1959. It is a Co-operative Spinning Mill situated at Banahatti, Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District.3. Having regard to the contentions urged on both sides, the following points arise for consideration:(i) Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to the demand made by the K.E.B. under the Bill dated 21-1-1989 produced as Annexure-J?(ii) If the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable, whether Article 14 or Article 15 of the Limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR776
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Writ Petition 799/86 is preferred by the occupant of the premises in question bearing No. 16, Eagle Street, Bangalore-1. Writ petition 3547/86 is preferred by the landlord of the premises in question. The allottee of the premises in question is respondent-4 in the first writ petition and respondent-3 in the second one. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 16-10-1985 passed by the Rent and Accommodation Controller, Civil Area, Bangalore (for short, the 'Controller') in case No. HRC. ACC 499/85; and also the order dated 6-12-1985 passed by the Deputy Commisioner, Bangalore in HRC Civil Appeal Nos. 223 and 224 of 1985-86.2. On a report made by the Revenue Inspector on 24-7-1985 that the premises in question was vacant as it was found locked, the Controller issued a notice to the landlord on 24-7-1985 to intimate the vacancy or to show cause as to why the vacancy should not be notified suo motu. The landlord by his reply dated 31-12-1985 informed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR552; 1994(2)KarLJ268
ORDERJagannatha Hegde, J1. This Petition is presented challenging the legality and validity of the election held at the General Elections to Lok Sabha 1991 (Tenth Lok Sabha) from No. 4 Koppal Parliamentary Constituency, Koppal. The polling was held on 15.6.1991. Counting of the votes was taken up on 16.6.1991 and the declaration of the result was made on 17.6.1991, declaring Respondent No. 1 as the successful candidate from the said constituency.2. Material allegations necessary for the purpose of deciding this Petition may be stated as follows:The petitioner contested the election as a candidate from Janatha Dal. Rule 1 to Rule 13 also contested the said election. Rule 1 was nominated by the Indian National Congress while Rule 2 was nominated by the Bharathiya Janatha Party. Rule 5 contested as a candidate set up by the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha. The other candidates contested the election as independent candidates. Rule 14 was the Returning Officer. The petitioner had appointed o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005(4)KarLJ168
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. All these petitions are filed by students seeking a direction directing the 2nd respondent to allot seats to the petitioners in the 3rd respondent-College.2. In W.P. No. 43830 of 2004 the prayer is slightly modified. Facts, grounds and the law in all these cases are common. Matters were heard by clubbing all these petitions by this Court and a common order is passed.3. Facts in brief are as under.--Petitioner, Sandeep in W.P. No. 43629 of 2004 appeared for CET examination and he secured medical rank of 12777. He is qualified and eligible for admission to the MBBS course. He belongs to 3-A category. He appeared for Counselling on 14-9-2004 and on 26-9-2004. He was unsuccessful in getting admission under 60% Government quota seats in terms of a formula evolved between the Government and the management of private medical colleges. The 3rd respondent-College was not included in seat matrix published by the 2nd respondent in view of the fact that the Medical Council...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999CriLJ177; ILR1998KAR3829
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the learned magistrate has committed an error in committing the case to the Court of Sessions on the ground that both the cases will have to be tried by the Court of Sessions as they are a case and a counter case even if the case in question is not exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge. He further emphasised that only if both the cases are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate can commit the case to the Court of Sessions and not otherwise. He further submitted that the witnesses have no locus standi to make an application to the Court to commit the case to the Court of Sessions.2. Repelling this argument, the learned advocate for the 1st & 2nd respondents submitted that it is a settled law that if there is a case and a counter case, both the cases will have to be tried by the same Court, lest it would lead to confusion and also inconsistent Judgments. He further submi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(5)KarLJ140
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. HRRP 511/2002 arises out of the order passed by the 19th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC 1506/1997. HRRP 567/1999 arises out of the order passed by the Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC 1500/1997.2. HRC 1506/1997 was filed by the petitioner landlady seeking for possession of the petition shop premises beating No. 1 comprised in premises No. 283, 7th Cross, 1st Main Road, K N Extension, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore 22, for her bonafide use and occupation for commencement of business. According to the petitioner, the petition premises was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- during the year 1970 for the purpose of running a General Stores by the tenant. According to the petitioner, the schedule shop premises and also other shop premises bearing Nos. 2 to 5 comprised in the property bearing No. 283 are adjacent to each other. The petitioner's husband has retired from service and her son has studied BBM and they intend to start a departmental store...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. Since this writ petition is posted for considering the application for disposal of the writ petition at the earliest, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the counsel on both sides. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners who are the legal representatives and sons of one Sri K.S.Laxminarayana Shetty, have challenged the acquisition notifications namely, preliminary notification dated 21/11/1974 (Annexure "M") and final notification dated 19/12/1975 (Annexure "N") and the agreement dated 17/1/2004, executed by the respondent No.2 - B.D.A. in favour of respondent No.4 ac being illegal arid without authority of law and they have sought an order of restraint against the respondents from interfering with land bearing Sy.No.67/2 measuring 34 Guntas situated at Peenya Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk thereinafter, referred to as 'the land in question"). 3. It is the case of the petitioners that their father was the absolute owner of the land in question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR405]; ILR2005KAR445; 2005(2)KarLJ150; (2005)IILLJ342Kant
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. The appellant before us is engaged in the manufacture of oil hydraulic equipments at its factory at White field and claims to be employing more than 200 workmen including officers, supervisors, etc. It is an industrial establishment covered by the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short 'the Act') and has its own standing orders which were certified in the year 1979. The workmen through their union applied to the Certifying Officer for some modifications in the standing orders and accordingly filed an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act. Amongst others, they sought amendment to the clauses defining 'probationer' and 'casual employee' and also sought enhancement in the age of retirement. Clauses 4 (1) and 4(2) of the standing orders provide for 9 months of probationary period subject to a further extension of 3 months to the satisfaction of the company. The workmen wanted this period to be reduced to 6 months s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR738; 1989(3)KarLJ195
ORDER1. Petitioners 1 and 2 were Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and respondent was the complainant in C.C. No. 119 of 1983 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chickmagalur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court or the trial Magistrate' as the case may be). For the sake of convenience, reference will hereinafter be made to the parties in this revision petition with reference to the positions they occupied in the trial Court viz., complainant and accused. 2. Both the accused are convicted by the trial Magistrate for an offence under section 500 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to suffer imprisonment for a further period of two months. Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1985 filed by the accused in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20-11-1985 passed against them by the trial Court is dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!