Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR54; (2003)IIILLJ612Kant
1. The validity of the action of the management of the Continental Construction Ltd., Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 7454 of 1999 and the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 6983/1999 terminating the service of four workmen under Clause 16 of the Certified Standing Orders (CSOs) of the Company and discharging another workmen during his probation in terms of the power reserved to the management in the appointment order is the subject matter of dispute between the management and the Continental Construction Limited Employees Union which is said to be a Trade Union representing those workmen. The Industrial Tribunal at Hubli held that the impugned action of the management is in accordance with law and in accordance with the power reserved to the management under Clause (6) of the CSOs and consequently, the reference was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. When the award of the Industrial Tribunal was assailed in Writ Petition No. 33435 of 1998 in this Court, a learned single. Judge of this Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR3309;
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. At the request of the learned Single Judge, large number of Civil Revision Petition have been referred to this Bench by the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. Though the referral request of the learned Single Judge does not indicate as to what is the order of reference or what question of law is required to be decided by a Division Bench, since after hearing the learned Counsel appearing in these cases, it appears to us general principles in so far as jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts entertaining a suit for ejectment, as laid down in few of the decision referred in this order, requires consideration.3. As no specific referral order and question for decision is formulated by the learned Single Judge, we have taken his case as a lead case and discussed the scope, jurisdiction and enquiry of Small Causes Courts in entertaining a suit for ejectment, carved out of the exception to the schedule under Small Causes Courts Act. The sequence leading to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. Alleging mala fides attributed to the second respondent and violation of all norms and rules pertaining to service jurisprudence, the senior-most IPS Officer in the State has sought justice to vindicate his position, which is alleged to have been lowered down by reducing him in status and subjecting him to humiliation by placing him virtually under subordination of respondent 4, admittedly much junior Police Officer in the IPS Cadre. Court has been moved to protect the interests of the higher Police Officers and other civil servants by relieving them from the alleged clutches of the politicians by providing a credible mechanism for their promotion, particularly the selection of the Police Chief in the State. Effective measures are prayed to be provided to give credibility to the services by providing them security of tenure by protecting their status under the rules keeping in view their seniority, performance, merit and reputation.Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2313; 1998(4)KarLJ186
1. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs and their family are entitled both by custom and by hereditary right to the perquisite of performing the panchakajjaya seva attached to the office of Keelu Shanti Archakas in the 1st defendant temple and for consequential relief of a perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant temple, its trustees and all persons claiming through or under them from interfering in any way with the performance of panchakajjaya seva by them. They also sought for setting aside the order of the 4th defendant (Commissioner of H.R. and C.E.) Bangalore, dated 11-9-1969 and also for ancillary relief.2. The material allegations are that the 1st defendant is an ancient Hindu Public Temple situated in Maravanthe village of Kundapura Taluk in Dakshina Kannada District. It is one of the oldest temple and governed under the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the husband who was the petitioner in M.C. No. 110/2001 by challenging the rejection of his petition by judgment and decree, dt. 16.12.2005 passed by the Pit Judge, Family Court at Bangalore.2. The respondent herein had also tiled M.C. No. 1218/2003 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, The said petition was also rejected by the said common order, dt. 16.12.2005 against which she preferred M.F.A. No. 5565/2008.3. This appeal arises on account of the appellant herein being aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty. According to the appellant, he was married to the respondent on 26.08.1998 as per the Hindu customs and rites at Bangalore and that after the marriage, the relationship between the parties were cordial and harmonious for a period of 1 1/2 years. That out of their wed-lock a chi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1988Kant243; 1988(1)KarLJ152
ORDER1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners who are 'C' class members of the Central Arecanut and Cocoa Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') have challenged the validity of Resolution No. 10 of the General Body Meeting of the said Society held on 31-1-85 effecting certain amendment bye-law No. 15 of the Society as per Annexure A and the order date 1-3-1985 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka (Respondent No. 18) approving and registering the said amendments as per Annexure-B.2. The Society is registered under S. 7 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 (for short the Act') read with S. 4(2) of the Multi Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942. The Society is governed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and with its bye-laws. The area of its operation extends to the States of Karnataka and Kerala and its, Headquarters is at Mangalore. The object of the Society is to procure arecanut and cocoa, u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR2808; 2005(3)KarLJ569
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The land bearing Sy. No. 22, measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and Sy. No. 23, measuring 18 guntas situated at Agrahara Dasarahalli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, originally belonged to one Sri Munikrishnappa. The erstwhile CITE notified the land for acquisition along with other lands and a preliminary notification came to be issued on 6-4-1961. It was followed by a final notification dated 19-12-1961. The owner of the land Munikrishnappa requested the BDA to denotify the said land and release the same to him for the purpose of formation of industrial area. The said application was considered by the CITB and they did not proceed with the acquisition of the land. On the contrary, they entered into an agreement with the said Munikrishnappa on 12-12-1961 whereunder he was permitted to convert the land and also to form the industrial layout. He was called upon to pay the layout charges of Rs. 7,698/- which he paid on 11-12-1961. Munikrishnappa continued in possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2730
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing three notices dated November 7, 1987, copies of which have been produced as annexures A1 to A3 and notice dated December 30, 1992, a copy of which has been produced as annexure A4, and three notices dated August 19, 1996, copies of which have been produced as annexures F1 to F3 and notice dated August 16, 1996, a copy of which has been produced as annexure F4. 2. Brief facts that may be relevant for disposal of these petitions may be set out as hereunder : The petitioner, in these petitions, is a public limited company engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of Indian-made foreign liquor (hereinafter referred to as 'the IMFL'); chemical fertilisers and fertiliser mixtures and consumer products, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that it has its own distilleries in some of the States of Union of India; and for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84, it did not have a distillery of it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1990]67CompCas377(Kar)
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. The respondent, Sundara Shetty, had filed O.S. No. 104 of 1968 before the court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, against one Ronald Lobo and B.l. Ignato for the amounts due to him on a hire purchase agreement and obtained an attachment before judgment of the immovable properties of B.L. Ignato. The suit came to be decreed on December 16, 1968, and on the execution petition filed by the plaintiff in Execution Case No. 44 of 1970 before the same court, the attached property wa sold in court auction and the plaintiff-respondent himself purchased the same in court sale and the sale was confirmed on april 17, 1971. He was even delivered possession of the property. The defendant present appellant-bank had encumbrance over the property by way of mortgage in its favour dated March 28, 1967, and the sale in favour of the plaintiff was subject to this mortgage. The plaintiff was not aware of any other encumbrance over this property. 2. After he took possession of the property s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR3445
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioners seek the quashing of the judgment and decree made in LAC. No. 3/1978 on the file of the Civil Judge, Uttar Kannada, Karwar.2. W.P. No. 10415/83 is by Ballarpur Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'The Company') which claims that the lands which were the subject matter of the aforesaid decision of the Court of the Civil Judge, were acquired for the benefit of the Company, f or the purpose of constructing salt pans for its caustic soda factory at Binaga, in Uttar Kannada. According to the Company, it initiated action through the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'The Board) for the acquisition of these lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (shortly called 'The Act) after declaring -the said lands as an industrial area.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Company was not notified of the proceedings before the Civil Court under ...
Tag this Judgment!