Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant257; 2002(1)KarLJ130
ORDERThe Court 1. These batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' for short) and the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('AAIFR' for short) and also the order of Government of India passed under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act in Ref. No. L-43024/ 2000-IR (MISC), dated 29-1-2001.2. The writ petitioners in W.P. Nos. 154 to 166 of 2001 have assailed the Circular issued by the 4th respondent-the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) of Bharat Gold Mines Limited as in Annexure-F, the Circular dated 8-12-2000 giving options to the employees of Bharat Gold Mines Limited, a Heavy Industry Package or the Gujarat Package with the rider that no change in choice once exercised will be permitted and the employees were directed to avail the benefit offered by the Government of India on or before 10-1-2001 under the said scheme.3. In W.P. Nos. 157 to 159 of 2001, the very writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1993]77CompCas402(Kar)
P.K. Shamsundar, J. 1. This writ petition is by a group of 15 petitioners all claiming to be the elected directors of two co-operative societies, viz., the Karnataka State Silk Handloom Weavers Co-op. Apex Ltd., Bangalore and the Karnataka State Cotton Handloom Weavers Co-op. Apex Ltd., Bangalore. They are seriously aggrieved by an order of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated June 29, 1992, vide annexure 'A' under which the learned Registrar who is a party respondent in this writ petition (R2) ordered the amalgamation of the two societies referred to supra who are incidentally respondents Nos. 4 and 5 herein and in their places brought out a new society called the Karnataka Co-operative Handloom Weavers Federation Ltd., Bangalore, who is the third respondent in this writ petition. Challenging the order of the second respondent, Additional Registrar as aforesaid, the erstwhile directors of the two societies, i.e., some of them have made a serious grievance of the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR4830; 2001(1)KarLJ442
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions (Paramashivaiah and Others v State of Karnataka) thereby confirming the order Annexure-L passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), rejecting the claim for conformant of occupancy right in respect of land measuring 26 acres 29 guntas in Sy. Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 82 and 83 of Chikkayellur Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Magadi Taluk, the appellants have come up in these appeals.2. Facts:Basavaiah alias Basavegowda, father and predecessor in interest of the appellants was the owner of the land bearing Sy. Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 82 and 83 in all measuring 26 acres 29 guntas. He agreed to sell the land in favour of one Hanumayya (now deceased), father and predecessor in interest of respondents 3(a) to (h) by an agreement of sale dated 10th of February, 1966. Since the said Basavaiah refused to execute the sale deed in pursuance to the agreement of sale,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001CriLJ4532
ORDER1. In these petitions filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the complainants have prayed for an order punishing the first respondent for willfully disobeying the order dated 25th March 1998 made in R.F.A. No. 830/1997 by this Court and also for violating the undertaking given by means of an affidavit undertaking to vacate the premises bearing present No. 39, Old No. 323/32, 9th Cross, Wilson Garden Extension, Corporation Division No. 36, Bangalore-27 (hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule premises').2. The facts in brief, which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder :(a) The parties, in the course of this order, will be referred to as 'the complainants' and the 'respondent'.(b) The complainants in these petitions are the children and legal heirs of one late K.K. Achayya. The respondent filed suit O.S. No. 2243/1981, against the said Achayya, on the file of the Court of City Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998AIR(Kar)20; 1997(3)KantLJ622; 1997(3)KarLJ622
CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.(1) THE instant appeal is filed to challenge the order on. A.. dated 8-10-1992 passed in O. S. No. 751/1987 by the VII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH No. 13), Bangalore, whereby the said Additional City Civil Judge had dismissed the suit of the appellant.(2) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M. Raviprakash and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Sri Urval M. Ramanand. I have perused the case records including the case records of the Court below and further certain case papers pertaining to the dispute in case No. JRB/mis. Dispute No. 38/76-77 before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore District, Bangalore City and copy of the final order came to be passed in Appeal No. 668/78 dated 12-8-1980 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and order dated 16-10-1984 in W. P. No. 18024/1980 of this Court, made available to me by both sides to the appeal to assist me to understand the background of the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1988Kant59; ILR1987KAR1242
Bopanna, J. 1. This appeal by the 5th defendant is preferred against the judgment and decree made by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 95 of 1971- decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against defendants 1 and 5 for a sum of Rs. 32,629-25 p. with costs and current interest at 6% per annum to be recovered by the sale of the plaint schedule properties and, in the event of any deficiency in the sale proceeds a decree for the balance amount to be recovered from the 1st defendant personally. The 1st defendant had remained ex parte before the trial Court and in this Court also and, therefore, the validity or otherwise of the second part of the decree against the 1st defendant personally does not arise for consideration in this appeal. We are only concerned with the mortgage decree made against the 5th defendant.2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. But, certain legal issues arise for consideration which, in our view, require to be considered, since t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1985(51)FLR15]; (1985)ILLJ243Kant
1. In this batch of 41 writ petitions presented by the I.T.C. Limited, Bangalore, the following important question of law arises for consideration : 'Where the Labour Court, before whom an application is filed by a management of an industry under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) seeking its approval to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against its workman, has the power to make an interim order against the applicant to pay full or part of the wages to the dismissed workman pending final orders on the application ?' 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are these : The workman-respondent, in each of the petitions, was in the employment of the petitioner. Separate disciplinary proceedings were instituted against each of them on certain serious charges of misconduct set out in the article of charges. A domestic inquiry was held against each of them on various dates. The Inquiry Officer recorded a finding to the effect that each of them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions, though are by two different persons, both of whom are claiming as legal heirs of persons in whose favour agricultural lands had been granted - an extent of 2 acres each - way back in the year 1947 and as persons belonging to depressed class [Adi Karnataka] and directed against different orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner - statutory functionaries under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act'), first as original authority and second as the Appellate Authority - after having heard the matter at length, I am disposing of the petitions by this common order, as the legal issues that are canvassed on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents are common, though on facts, some more issues are sought to be raised insofar as the respondents 3 to 5 in W.P. No. 8141 of 2003 are concerned.2. Both p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant389; ILR1998KAR3230; 1998(3)KarLJ73
1. The present second appeal has been placed before this Full Bench under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, since the learned Single Judge, before whom the appeal was placed for hearing, has doubted the correctness of the law laid down by the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of A. Kareem Baig and Others v Dr. Mohammad Khizar Hussain, K. Guru Rao vM. Subba Rao and M. Azmathulla Khan (dead) by L.Rs vThankamma Mathews. In the said decisions, it has been held that once the remedy by way of suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of an immovable property becomes barred by limitation as provided under the Limitation Act, then even the statutory right of the transferee, as given under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short 'the Act'), to defend the possession over the property taken or continued under the said contract as granted is lost, destroyed or gets extinguished.Facts2. This is defendants' second appeal. The plaintiff/respondent had f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.4.2009 in. O.S.No. 7934/2001 passed by the learned IX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and injunction and dismissing the counter claim of defendants for decree of permanent injunction. 2, Appellants are defendants 1 to 4, first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 8 are defendants 5 to 11 before the Trial Court. In this judgment, for convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. Wherever there is underlining, it is ours. 3. It is the case of plaintiff that Sriia Prabhupada, a disciple of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu preached, propogated and spread the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness all over the world, From 1966 and onwards, Srila Prabhupada started a movement under the name and style International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in New York. Within a short span of time the s...
Tag this Judgment!