Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal Filed Under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.11362 of 2007 dated 02-08-2007.) 1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to teachers in an educational institution. 2. The petitioner was appointed by the third respondent-educational institution in one of the colleges run by it as a full time Lecturer on 09.11.1997. Thereafter, he served the institution in the capacity of Lecturer for 7 years and 20 days. On 30.11.2004 he resigned from service. On 10.08.2005 he made a claim against the third respondent for payment of gratuity in a sum of Rs.1,11,784-00 with interest before the first respondent. By order dated 21.03.2006 as per Annexure-F the claim of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of an employee as defined under Section 2(e) of the Payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in order dt.3.8.2006 vide Annex-B1 and order passed by the Karnataka State Governor and its Chief Secretary, under Administrative Dept. (Jail and Cinema) order dt.3.8.2006, and Govt. order dt.14.8.2006, vide Annex-B1 where in at serial No.89, the name of the 3rdrespondent Manjunath is found, in the interest of justice and equity.)1. The son of a victim of brutal murder, is crying for justice, and is knocking at the doors of this Court, challenging the State action, of granting pardon to the perpetuator of the said heinous crime who is roaming in the streets of his Village, and wants to know, “is it justice?”.2. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)
(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Bangalore District, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.7801/2003 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, praying to the pass a judgment and decree against the defendants as under: a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their licensee, nominees, agents, suppliers, dealers, consignees or any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products LIVOLIV-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected patent rights under patent No.186857 of 20th April 1998 granted A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Anthiepatotoxic Composition in the market throughout India and etc.)1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected Patent rights u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore District, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.7801/2003 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, praying to the pass a judgment and decree against the defendants as under: a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their licensee, nominees, agents, suppliers, dealers, consignees or any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products ‘LIVOLIV-250’ by infringing the plaintiff’s protected patent rights under patent No.186857 of 20th April 1998 granted ‘A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Anthiepatotoxic Composition’ in the market throughout India and etc.) 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This W P is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to grant such other writ direction or relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.) 1. There is no dearth of half-baked, incompetent, irresponsible advocates in legal profession. It appears, their number is increasing rather than decreasing! It is high time the professional body – Bar Council wakes up from its slumber take a deep breath, examine the level of professional standards and quality of the members practicing the noble legal profession and ensure measures to make available legal services to the community in a proper manner; that quality legal service is made available to the members of the public and the society. For such purpose it may not be sufficient if cosmetic changes are attempted at the entry levels but it is equally important that persons who are in the legal profession and those who might have got in earlier are also possessed with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the Respondent produced at Annexure-A and etc.,) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner was an Associate Professor in the Mangalore University. He was employed with the University from the year 1995. He joined the University as a Lecturer and he was promoted as a Senior Lecturer in 1999 and as a Reader in 2004 and as on the date of the petition, he was an Associate Professor. The petitioner claims that he had a record of service which was without any blemish. The petitioner claims academic excellence and it is stated that on a project proposal, entirely conceived by him, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research had awarded the project to the University, as a result of which, a sum of Rs.2.10 Crore was placed at the disposal of the University to carry out the research activities as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to call for the records in SC/ST petition 147/2005-06 from the file of Assistant Commissioner south Sub-Division, Bangalore and SC/ST Appeal No. 107/2006-07 from the file of special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, Bangalore District. Quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Bangalore South, Sub-Division, in SC/ST No. 147/2005-06 Dt.30.10.2006 vide Anx-B of this Writ Petition and the orders passed by the special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore District in SC/ST(A)107/2006-07 Dt. 12.10.2009 and quash Anx-D.) 1. There was a time when legal profession was practiced in proper, efficient committed manner. It is only because of this nature of practice of the profession, the profession earned the name that it is a noble profession. 2. Whether it is still being practiced in the same manner, whether it can still command the reputation of being a noble profession are all matters hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1)In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioners have sought for quashing the entire proceedings in C,Mis.86/2010 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-V.. Bangalore.2) First petitioner is the husband. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the pa rents-in-law of the respondent, while petitioner Nos.4 & 5 are the eider sister and younger brother respectively of the 1st petitioner. The respondent has filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. ( for short, the 'Act') seeking protection order as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act, Maintenance Order under Section 20 of the Act and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act, against the petitioners herein in C.Mis. No.86/20.10. Upon presentation of the said petition, the learned Magistrate ordered registration of the case and directed issue of notices to the petitioners herein as provided by Section 13 of the Act- Upon receipt of the notice issued, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1) In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought for quashing the entire p rocordings in C.Mis.86/2010 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-V, Bangalore. 2) First petitioner is the husband, Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 arc the parents-in-law of the respondent, while petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 are the elder sister and younger brother respectively of the 1st petitioner. The respondent has filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005. (for short, the 'Act') seeking protection order as contemplated tinder Section 18 of the Act, Maintenance Order under Section 20 of the Act and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act, against the petitioners herein in C.Mis. No.86/2010. Upon presentation of the said petition, the learned Magistrate ordered registration of the case and directed issue of notices to the petitioners herein as provided by Section 13 of the Act, Upon receipt of the notice issued, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. All these Writ Petitions are listed before this Bench by a Special Order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for decision. The subject matter of all these petitions is identical though one of the writ petition is by way of public interest litigation. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in W.P.No. 66920/2010 herein are the member shareholders of the Doodhganga Krishna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Chikkodi. It is a Co-operative sugar factory registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It was established to cater to the needs of the sugarcane farmers in and around Chikkodi, Raibagh and Athani Taluk in Belgaum District. Later it was converted into a Multi-State Co-operative Society under the Karnataka Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, by extending its area of operation to more than one State (Karnataka and Maharashtra) Earlier, they were having crushing capacity of 2500 TCD...
Tag this Judgment!