Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-14-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR1906; 1994(4)KarLJ485
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. This is a Petition for Review of an Order passed by an earlier Division Bench consisting of MOHAN C.J. and SHIVARAJ PAUL, J. on 27th September 1991, dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 2473 of 1991 filed by the present petitioners, who are the heirs of the original Writ-petitioner viz., C.N. Byrappa.2. A few facts which are leading to the present Review proceedings deserve to be noted at the out-set. The original Writ-petitioner, who filed Writ Petition No. 5206 of 1987 under Article 226 of the Constitution, had called in question the correctness and legality of the orders of the Assistant Commissioner (3rd respondent herein) at Annexure-A to the petition as well as the Deputy Commissioner (2nd respondent herein) at Annexure-B to the petition, respectively. The dispute centered round 3A-09G out of 09A-28G of land in Sy.No.90 of Chandalapura village, Chickaballapur Taluk, Kolar District. These lands were granted in favour of Kempanna father of Chowdappa, 4th respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-25-1994
Reported in : 1995(1)ALT(Cri)438; 1994CriLJ3689; ILR1994KAR2513; 1994(4)KarLJ147
ORDER1. In these three contempt petitions under sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act for short), the complainants have sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/accused and to punish them in accordance with law of disobedience of the orders made by the subordinate Courts. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the these cases are as follows :- The complainant in C.C.C. No. 605 of 1994 filed a suit in O.S. No. 92 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff, Chintamani, for a declaration that the notice in No. FA-KIP-652-53 dated 28-1-1993 issued by the respondent herein was illegal and for permanent injunction restraining him from disconnecting the electricity to installation No. KIP 19 of Chinnasandra village belonging to the complainant. After the notice was served, on the undertaking given by the respondent, the Court by its order dated 25-2-1993 directed not to disconnect power to the said installation of the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-30-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR3018; 1995(1)KarLJ15
Tirath Singh Thakur, J. 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the validity of an order of dismissal passed against him by the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Respondent-Company and that passed by the Board of Directors dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the same. The petitioner has also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate him against the post originally held by him with continuity of service and payment of salary and allowances etc.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this Petition may be stated first:The petitioner was at the relevant time working as the Joint General Manager of H.M.T. Factory-I and II at Bangalore. Being qualified to get a motor car advance for the purchase of a Motor Car, the petitioner made a request for such an advance, which request was granted and a loan of Rs. 45,000/- sanctioned by the competent authority in his favour. The petitioner dr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-24-1994
Reported in : ILR1995KAR347; 1995(4)KarLJ607
Mohan Kumar, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the Union of India under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of the Immoveable Properties Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Requisitioning Act') against the award made by the Arbitrator in a proceeding for the fixation of compensation payable with respect to the land in question requisitioned under the Act.2. For the sake of convenience, as we proceed to state the facts of the case, we may also refer briefly to the statutory provisions relating to the requisitioning of a property. The said Act was enacted on 14.3.1952 to enable the Union of India to requisition/acquire immoveable property if the competent authority is of the opinion that the said property is needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose. Section 1(3) of the Act provided that the Act shall remain in force for a period of six years from the date of commencement of the Act. Section 3 thereof conferred the power to requisition the property if it 'is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-29-1994
Reported in : 1995(1)KarLJ113
ORDER1. A joint request was made by the Management of the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board and its workmen to the State Government to make a Reference of the Dispute existing between them for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, Consequently, a Reference was made by the Government of Karnataka under No. SWL 579 LLD 70 dated 16th August 1979, to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore on the following points of dispute :- '1) Are the workmen justified in demanding bonus from the management of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board 2) If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?' 2. On receipt of the Reference by the Tribunal it recorded evidence adduced by the parties and by its award dated 27th December, 1983 held that the employees of the Board excepting those engaged at its 4 pumping stations and two treatment plants, were not justified in demanding Bonus. In arriving at the said conclusion the Tribunal found that the Pumping Stations and the treatment plant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1994
Reported in : AIR1994Kant256; ILR1994KAR687
ORDER1. The petition was listed in the preliminary hearing Group 'B'. By consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard on merits and disposed offinally.This petition is presented by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 31-5-1993 passed by the first respondent in Order No. HUD 109 CUP 92 (Annexure-S) on the ground that the same is illegal and without the authority of law having been made in violation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), besides being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner has further sought for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take action under Section 20(2) of the Act by taking over the entire land in Sy. Nos. 97/2 and 98 of Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore on the ground that the land in question is in excess of the ceiling limit and for a further direction to 6th respondent to retain the entire land for the company for its expansion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-29-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Kant157; 1996(7)KarLJ149
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari or writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the notification bearing No. R8.P.R.(A)S8-6/93-94 dated 15-3-1994, Annexure-E to the writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the endorsement dated 9-3-1994 bearing No. RS PR(A) 6/92-93, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-F to the writ petition, as well as quashing of endorsement dated 21-3-1994 bearing No. R8 PR(A) 6/92-93, a copy of which is Annexure-G to the win petition. The petitioner has further prayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus or writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to the first respondent to confirm acceptance of the highest bid of the petitioner of Rs. 18.000/- per month in respect of (he slaughter house in Lushker Mohalla in the City of Mysore, which according to the petitioner, has been accepted by second respondent on 8-3-1994.2. Facts of the case in brief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-15-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR1919
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought for quashing the award dated 20-7-1987 published in the Gazette dated 22-8-1987 produced at Annexure-A.2. The brief facts of the case are as under: -The VISL is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It has set up its factory for manufacturing of Iron and Steel Products, at Bhadravathi. It has taken some mines on lease from the State Government. One such mine is at Bilikllabetta and it is known as Bilikllabetta Quartz Mines (hereinafter referred as B.B.Mines). 3. For mining operations contractors were appointed from time to time. The contractors in turn engaged labourers. Sri Puttaiah. T and Sri Chennakeshava are the contractors extracting the work in the Mines, engaged 185 workers and they used to pay Rs. 4/- for male workers and Rs. 3/- for female workers per day from the year 1975 till 31st of March, 1983. The Mines Employees Association raised a dispute for higher wages. It was referred to the Industrial Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-15-1994
Reported in : 1994(3)KarLJ110; (1995)ILLJ196Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing the award dated July 20, 1987 published in the Gazette dated August 22, 1987 produced at Annexure-A.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-The VISL is a Company registered under the Companies Act It has set up its factory for manufacturing of Iron and Steel Products, at Bhadravathi. It has taken some mines on lease from the State Government. One such mine is at Bilikllabetta and it is known as Bilikllabetta Quartz Mines (hereinafter referred as B.B. Mines).3. For mining operations contractors were appointed from time to time. The contractors in turn engaged labourers. Sri Puttaiah, T and Sri Chennakeshava are the contractors extracting the work in the Mines, engaged 185 workers and they used to pay Rs. 4/- for male workers and Rs. 3/- for female workers per day from the year 1975 till March 31 of 1983. The Mines Employees Association raised a dispute for higher wages. It was referred to the Industrial Tribunal a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-09-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR1370; 1994(5)KarLJ63
R. Ramakrishna, J.1. The appellant - Airbus Industrie is a groupment D'lnterest created under the Laws of France engaged in the business of manufacturing passenger and cargo aircraft since 1969. The first aircraft manufactured by them was called Airbus A-300, The second aircraft called A-320 was introduced later and was supplied to various renowned Airlines all over the world.2. Respondent No. 10, the Indian Airlines Corporation purchased about 20 aircrafts A-320. One such aircraft purchased by respondent No. 10 was an aircraft bearing registration VT-EPN. On 14.2.1990 this aircraft bearing registration VT-EPN was a schedule passenger flight from Bombay to Bangalore being flight No. IC 605. In the course of this flight while attempting to land at Bangalore Air Port at 13-03 hours contacted ground approximately 2,300 feet before the beginning of runway No. 09 within the boundary of Golf Association and immediately thereafter hit the embankment which was the boundary wall of the Golf Cou...
Tag this Judgment!