Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2005)DMC632; ILR2005KAR2346; 2006(3)KarLJ415
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The respondent has filed a Petition in M.C. No. 726/2001 on the file of Family Court at Bangalore for grant of divorce and to award a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for the rest of her life. The petitioner is working as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The respondent was working in a Bank and now she has obtained voluntary retirement. In the proceedings before the Family Court, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act requesting the Court to direct the petitioner herein to pay a maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- per month contending that her husband is getting more than Rs. 20,000/- as salary per month and that she is not in a position to maintain herself and that she cannot be a burden to her father. The petitioner-husband contended that the respondent-wife has received a retirement benefit of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs), therefore, she is not entitled to claim a separate maintenance. The respondent further co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR1162; 2005(2)KarLJ337
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. The Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Respondents to pay the salary for the period from 30.4.1994 to 30.4.1996 and fix the pension on the basis of the last salary that could be paid on 30.4.1996.2. The Respondent Nos. l to 3 are represented by Sri H S Surendra, learned High Court Government pleader. The Respondent No. 4 is represented by Sri B G Sridharan, learned Counsel.3. Heard arguments.4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under :-During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner died. Therefore, his L.Rs., have come on record. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was appointed as an Attender in the Department of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. After reorganisation on 1.1.1957, the petitioner was transferred to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee under the-jurisdiction of the Karnataka State. As per the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules 1952 governing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR1744
ORDER1. This Court in this case disposed of on 9th May, 2003 since reported in : (2003)IIILLJ31SC , issued certain directions. Those directions need not be reproduced herein. Pursuant to or in furtherance of those directions, the State of Bihar has deposited a sum of Rs. 50 crores. The High Court of Judicature at Patna has also constituted a Committee headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha, a former Judge of the Patna High Court.2. A report of the said Committee has been placed before us, from a perusal whereof it appears that a sum of Rs. 25,98,65,883.00 had been recommended for payment to the employees of most of the undertakings, Payment to Bihar State Sugar Corporation was said to be in the pipeline which came to be about Rs. 17 crores. It has been pointed out that BSIDC and units of other Corporations in Jharkhand had not been paid yet and the Committee is left with Rs. 6 crores and odd.3. An application for clarification has been filed by the Petitioner herein marked as I.A. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2784; 2004(5)KarLJ239
ORDER 47 RULE 1 - DOCTRINE OF MERGER - REVIEW PETITION FILED - MAINTAINABILITY - Civil Court after fixing the market value did not award interest on solatium and additional market value - Batch of MFA's filed seeking interest on solatium and additional market value - Batch of MFA's dismissed on the ground that explanation offered for delay was not satisfactory - The land owners thereafter field petitions under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPCs under Section 151 CPC in the Civil Court seeking to review its judgment and order dated 30.11.98 - Said Review petitions dismissed by Civil Courts - CRP's preferred to High Court - Learned Single Judge referring the same to Division Bench -Whether review petitions filed by the petitioners before the Civil Court under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and 151 CPC are maintainable - Whether the award passed by Civil Court on 30.11.98 merges with the order of learned Single Judge in the batch of MFA's - HELD - This Court revises or m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2589; 2004(5)KarLJ393
ORDERKumar, J 1. Company Petition No. 40/2003 is filed by Comat Infoscribe Pvt. Ltd., and Co.P. No. 42/2003 is filed by Bangalore Cyberspace Pvt. Ltd., which are transferor companies and Co.P.No. 41/2003 is filed by Comat Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which is the transferee company. These three petitions are filed by these companies seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation proposed by them where under two transferor companies are amalgamated with the transferee company. Therefore, ultimately Court has to decide whether the scheme proposed by these three companies require to be sanctioned or not. Therefore all these company petitions are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.2. In the scheme Bangalore Cyberspace Private Limited is referred to as first transferor company. The said company was incorporated on 21st March 2000 under the Companies Act 1956 with its registered office at No. 66, 11th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore - 560 003. The authorized cap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(4)KarLJ594
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.W.P. Nos. 173 to 195 of 2004 connected with W.P. Nos. 656 to 663 of 2004:1. Facts of these cases are as under:Petitioners in these petitions state that they are serving the respondents-Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited ('BESCOM' for short), since 1998 as ledger clerks. According to them the respondents appointed them for proper administration of work and maintenance of records in the offices of the BESCOM in its four zones called, Bangalore West, North, South and Central. The nature of duties of the petitioners is to maintain ledgers, undertaking the work of maintaining record of demand, collection and balance etc. They are being paid a consolidated salary. The Deputy Controller of Accounts informed the fifth respondent that appointment of the persons on contract basis was approved. They were appointed by the then Karnataka Electricity Board ('KEB' for short), but however no orders were issued. The Government passed an Act in the matter of functioning of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2004]136STC519(Kar)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4971 of 1999 (Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2000] 117 STC 437) before this Court. The learned single Judge in the impugned order rejected the writ petition.2. Facts in brief, which have led to the filing of this appeal, are as hereunder :The appellant is a public limited company and owns a Tug (Towing vessel) by name 'Kumari Tarini' (hereinafter referred to as 'the tug'). The appellant entered into a charter party agreement with New Mangalore Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the NMPT') on January 8, 1998, wherein it was agreed to make available the services of the said tug for the purposes mentioned in the said agreement along with the master and other personnel of the appellant to the NMPT for a period of six months from the date of commencement of service. A copy of the said agreement was produced as annexure A to the writ petition. The 2nd respondent, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(1)KarLJ509
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner before me who is a senior Doctor, was at the relevant time holding the post of Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, M.S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore has assailed the validity of an order dated 20-1-2003 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in M.A. (EAT) No. 31 of 2002. The respondent-M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'College'), passed an order dated 12-10-2002 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect. Technically speaking, the order stated that the petitioner was given three months notice but in actual fact, the order took effect forthwith. The petitioner challenged the order through an appeal filed under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. On notice being issued to the College, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the proceeding, the contention being that an appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR3424
ORDERDattu, J. 1. Question of law involved in all these Writ Petitions is identical.Therefore, all these Writ Petitions are clubbed together, heard anddisposed off by this common order. 2. Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions belong to the State WideCadre of Graduate Engineers in the erstwhile Karnataka ElectricityBoard (.Board. for short ) Some time in the year 1998-99, there was a proposal toinitiate certain reforms in the functioning of the Board. In view ofthat, the State Government has promulgated an Act known as.Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. (`Act. for short). It hasreceived the assent of the President on 28.8.1999 and it has comeinto force w.e.f 1.6.1999. 3. The preamble of the Act gives out the purpose of the ReformsAct, 1999. The preamble reads as under: 'An Act to provide for the constitution of an ElectricityRegulatory Commission (The Commission) for the State ofKarnataka, to provide for the restructuring of the electricity industryin the State, the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant473; ILR2003KAR2192; 2003(4)KarLJ416
Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This regular second appeal is preferred by the appellants in R.A. No. 6/96 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the court below dismissing the appeal preferred by them and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S. No. 185/91 which was partly decreed by the trial Court.2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in the course of this judgment with reference to their rank in the trial Court.3. The suit schedule properties belonged to one Sakkubayamma. She had a daughter by name Bhagyamma who pre-deceased her in the year 1967. The said Bhagyamma had four daughters and one son. Sakkubayamma died in the year 1980. During her life time Sakkubayamma sold part of the suit property measuring 105 x 48 feet to one Krishnoji Rao which was subsequently purchased by Padmavathamma, the second defendant under a registered deed of sale on 28.9.1977. Sakkubayamma has executed the document Ex.D. 10 transferring the remaining part of the sch...
Tag this Judgment!