Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-25-2008
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR1128]; 2008(6)KarLJ344; (2009)ILLJ661Kant; 2008(5)AIRKarR437
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. An award dated 29th March, 2006 in Reference No. 122 of 1998 is called in question.2. Seven workmen sought for reference of a dispute on the ground that, they were illegally dismissed from service. An enquiry was held against 7 workmen inter alia, on the charge that they had gone on illegal and unjustified strike on 16-10-1995 without giving any notice and had obstructed the loyal employees, patients and their at tenders to get into the hospital and had threatened the employees with dire consequence and because of the strike and threats, the work of the hospital suffered considerably and the patients were put to lot of hardship.3. On the basis of the evidence led by parties, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report, holding that the charges alleged against the 7 workmen are proved. The Disciplinary Authority considering the findings and also the explanation, passed an order of dismissal, against which a reference sought.4. Before the Reference Court, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-12-2008
Reported in : ILR2009KAR584; 2009(3)KarLJ364:2009(2)KCCR10092009(2)AIRKarR441(D.B)
V. Gopalagowda, J.1. The appellant-ITI Employees Housing Co-Operative Society Limited filed this writ Appeal questioning the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in writ Petition No. 5110/2001(LA-HB) wherein the learned Single Judge has declined to quash the notification impugned in the Writ Petition by which the first respondent-state Government in exercise of its power Under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter called as L.A. Act) denotified 1 acre 15 guntas of land out of 7 acres 15 guntas including 7 guntas of phut kharab in Sy. No. 18 of Mallathahalli village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore Smith Taluk, Bangalore District in favour of the appellant's society urging various grounds.2. There is no need fox us to advert to the facts in this judgment as the learned single Judge has elaborately referred to the same. We are referring only the rival legal contentions urged in this appeal for the purpose of examining the same to find out wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-2008
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. In this writ petition filed in public interest, a direction is sought to respondents 1 to 3 to upgrade Model ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, with all modern equipments including I.C. Unit and sufficient supply of necessary drugs and for other consequential reliefs.It is contended by the petitioner that ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore is functioning since 1961; It is located in a convenient place and easily accessible to all the routes of buses; The said hospital was being run by the Government of Kamataka till 2003; thereafter the Hospital is taken by the ESI Corporation on 1.4.2003 as part of Model Hospital Scheme as is done in every State of our Nation.2. The respondents have appeared through their respective advocates.3.1. Heard.3.2. Every reasonable man on the earth wishes to have good health and tries to maintain it till his last breath. There cannot be any doubt that health is wealthier than wealth.3.3. Certain of the famous personalities of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-25-2008
Reported in : ILR2009KAR756:2009(2)KCCR1083:2009(1)AIRKarR380
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. The appellants were the defendants 1 and 2 in the Trial Court and respondents 1 and 2 in the first appellate Court. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs in the Trial Court and appellants in the first appellate Court. 3rd respondent herein was defendant 3 in the Trial Court and respondent 3 in the first appellate Court. This second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2003 passed in R.A. 23/2001 by the Principal District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and modifying the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1988 passed In O.S. 23/1982 by the Civil Judge, Puttur. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgment will also be referred by their status in the suit/Trial Court.2. Facts In a nutshell are as follows:The case of the plaintiffs is that, they and the 3rd defendant are members of an undivided Hindu family, which owned immovable properties detailed in schedule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-25-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)KarLJ388; 2009(1)AIRKarR495; AIR2009NOC1069
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has sought for setting aside the order dated 25th April 2008 vide Annexure E as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to award the contract in favour of petitioner.2. Facts in brief is that, the second respondent -Director of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore has issued the Tender Notification dated 27th June 2007 to run a canteen in the second respondent -Hospital premises. The petitioner and the third respondent submitted their tender applications along with the respective quotations. The second respondent did not consider the case of the petitioner and his offer was rejected, in spite of quoting lower price in respect of 23 different items of food for the attendants and patients, who are admitted for treatment of their respective diseases. It is the case of petitioner that, even though, the third respondent has offered higher price in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-03-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AIRKarR90
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In these two writ petitions, petitioners are banking institutions. In writ petition No. 36339 of 2003, M/s. State Bank of Mysore, a subsidiary of State Bank of India is the writ petitioner and is an institution which is governed by the State Bank of India [Subsidiary Banks] Act, 1959 [for short 'subsidiary Act']. In writ petition No. 37366 of 2003, M/s. Vijaya Bank, a Nationalized Bank under the provisions of the Banking Companies [Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings] Act, 1980 [for short 'Acquisition Act, 1980'] and is identified under the provisions of the Acquisition Act, 1980 as a 'corresponding new bank' as defined in terms of Section 2[b] of the Acquisition Act, 1980.2. Writ petitioners are before this court in the context of the liability fastened on them under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Act, 1976 [for short the 'Act'].3. Though on facts, the position of the two petitioners slightly dif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-01-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Kant79; 2009(2)AIRKarR518.
Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The appellant Nos. 1 to 7 herein, being the legal representatives of the deceased defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 435/1986 on the file of the learned XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) have challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2001 passed in the said suit decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 8.10.1985 in respect of the suit property bearing No. 5/5 situate at 30th Cross, H.C. Byrasandra, Tank Bund Road, Tilaknagar, Bangalore, having two shops and a residential house.2. Stated in brief, the case of the plaintiff (hereinafter parties are referred to as per their rank in the original suit before the Trial Court) as averred in her plaint is as under:(i) On 9.11.1984 the 2nd defendant let out the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 310/-. At that time, the plaintiff paid to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-02-2008
Reported in : AIR2008NOC2790(FB); ILR2008(3)KAR2895; 2008(4)KarLJ593; 2008(4)KLJ593; 2008(5)AIRKarR261; AIR2008NOC2790(FB)
..... opinion that it is a fit case for consideration by the full bench. hence, under section 7 of the karnataka high court act, we refer these matters for the opinion of the full bench. in the mean while ..... wiser or more scientific or logical. the court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide....144. in the case of peerless general finance and investment co. v ..... 19th centuries was governed by considerations of administrative convenience and economy and reasons of military strategy and security. with the emergence of nationalism, towards the end of 19th century, the policy of balance and counter ..... go. therefore, to contend that the imposition of study of kannada throws an undue burden on the students is untenable.39. the opinion of the educational experts and international organizations as reflected in news letters, magazines, resolutions world ..... been clearly set out:140. in the case of rustom cavasjee cooper v. union of india : [1970]3scr530 the supreme court held as follows:.but the court will not sit in appeal over ..... times this attitude is coupled with ignorance. in karnataka the government are running schools at their cost for the linguistic minorities with their respective languages as the medium of instruction, even at middle ..... not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in overstepping its limits.150. the policy is essentially for the state to formulate keeping in mind the need and requirements of the people .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)AIRKarR291; AIR2008NOC2137; 2008AIHC2457(Kar); 2008(5)KLJ220
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs before the trial court. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for dissolution of the firm viz., M/s. High Clere Stud, and Agricultural Farm and for putting the plaintiffs in separate possession of the portion of the land to be awarded to the deceased Gopirathnam and for accounts of the farm, from the data of constitution of the firm, till the date of the suit and for costs and other reliefs came to be dismissed and hence, aggrieved by the said decision of the trial court, the plaintiffs are before this court.2. The first appellant is the wife of late Gopirathnam and appellants 2 and 3 are the daughters of the above said first appellant and Gopirathnam. Gopirathnam was one of the partners of the 4th respondent M/s. High Clere stud and Agricultural Farm. The other partners were the respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 5 to 7 are the purchasers of some of the suit properties.3. A deed of partnership came into existence on 1.1.1966 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-15-2008
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal though listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, fined by hoard and disposed of by this order.2. Thirteen guntas of land comprised in resurvey Nos. 262/1A, 262/1B, 262/1C, 262/2A, and 262/2B as well as 1 guntas of land comprised in R.S. No. 271/2A and 271/2D of Pattanakudi Village, Chikodi Taluk, Belgaum District ware acquired for a public purpose to wit for construction of percolation water tank by issuing 4(1) notification dated 9.6.1998. The land acquisition officer after holding award enquiry and based on sales statistics fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 37,100/- per acre which, on reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at the instance of the owners, the Reference Court adopting capitalisation method, placing reliance on Ex. P2, the yield notification, and Ex. P3, the price list, enhanced the market value of the sugarcane growing lands to Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre and t...
Tag this Judgment!