Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ729Kant
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The management of HMT Limited being aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge dated, November 11 and 12, 1998, in Writ Petition No. 26334 of 1994 has preferred this writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1964. The dispute relates to the disciplinary action taken against the respondent herein. The events leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted in the first instance briefly and they are as follows: 2. The management of HMT Limited invited applications for the post of Deputy General Manager (PR) prescribing certain qualifications and eligibility conditions. The respondent submitted an application for the post enclosing her bio-data. The management by its letter dated June 18, 1990, informed the respondent that she had been selected for the post and sought her acceptance. The respondent accepted the offer and reported for duty. The respondent was placed on probation and her probation period was extended by three months and ultima...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1640
K. Bhimiah, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Sessions Case No. 9/8 of 1968. The appellant has been found guilty of the offence Under Sections 324 and 302 IPC both the sentences to run concurrently.2. The accused Thippanna, deceased Gundappa and the injured Narappa are the residents of the locality of Beeron Quilla, Raichur. The house of the accused is near the top of the hillock and the houses of the injured Marappa and the deceased Gundappa and other persons are near the hillock on a lower level. There is also a Hanuman temple on the top of the hillock and there is a street light in front of the said Hanuman temple. Marappa has an unmarried sister by name Nagamma. Marappa and his younger brother Gaddeppa and their parents all reside in the same house along with their sister. The incident took place on 15-12-1967 at about 7-30 p. m. in front of the house of the appellant. The appellant is alleged to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2003Ker312; 2003(4)CTC193; (2004)186CTR(Ker)172; I(2004)DMC148; 2003(3)KLT6
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is a Christian father under an obligation to maintain his minor child? More than three decades back, a Full Bench of this Court had considered this question in 'The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. P.M. Paily Pillai' 1972 KLT 24. Following an earlier decision of a Division Bench in Chacko Daniel v. Daniel Joshua 1952 KLT 595, it was held that the duty of the father was an imperfect obligation. It was not an actionable wrong. Thus, it was concluded that 'there is no legal obligation on the part of the Christian father to maintain his minor child'. Accordingly, the question was answered in the negative. The correctness of this view was questioned in these two cases. It was pointed out that discordant notes had been struck after the decision in Paily Pillai's case. The issue was referred to a Full Bench. Initially, the matter was listed before a Bench of three Judges. However, in view of the fact that a Full Bench had already considered the matter, the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)103; 2002CriLJ3611; 2002(4)MhLj293
A.B. Palkar, J. 1. All these three petitions have been filed by the accused in C. R. No. 44 of 1995 in respect of which Criminal Case No. 69/P of 2000 and Case No. 429 of 1994 of Thane, which have been merged in the aforesaid Case No. 69/P of 2000, pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, for quashing of the prosecution.2. Pyarelal Ramkishore Prajapati is the main accused and was the only accused when complaint was filed on behalf of M/s Arcade (I) Pvt. Ltd. by one M. G. Ramchandra, who is now joined as a party respondent to the above petitions and would hereinafter be referred to as 'respondent' or 'complainant' whereas petitioner would be referred to as 'petitioner' or 'accused' for the sake of convenience.3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent on 11-5-1987. On record there is no detailed agreement as is normally found in case of building construction but the bookin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(Prayers: This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2014 passed in O.S. No.37/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, partly decreeing the suit filed for partition and separate possession. This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2014 passed in O.S. No.37/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, partly decreeing the suit filed for partition and separate possession. This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2014 passed in O.S. No.37/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, partly decreeing the suit filed for partition and separate possession. This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2014 passed in O.S. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.C. 1. Whether this Court should hear and dispose of this suit or the suit has to be tried by the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai is the issue. It is the case of the defendant that this Court does not have jurisdiction in view of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act 1882 (for brevity referred as 'the said Act') and therefore, the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and to be presented to the appropriate forum, viz., the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. 2. The plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in reply opposing the chamber summons whereby the stand is that the present suit is not between the lessees/landlord/tenants and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction. 3. The case of the defendant, in short however, is that, the plaint as it reads clearly shows that the dispute raised by the plaintiffs is for possession of the suit property and that the plaintiffs' wish to be declared as lessees of the suit property. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ72
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this revision is whether the plaintiffs in a suit could be granted permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute another suit on the basis of a cause of action different from the one involved in the suit.2. The revision petitioners filed O.S. No. 16 of 1992, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Haripad against respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction, for fixation of boundary and for mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs claimed title to an extent of one cent 650 Sq. links of land (plaint A schedule property). They purchased it from a larger area having an extent of 22 cents. The plaintiffs have constructed a building in the property purchased by them and are doing business there. Plaint B schedule item Nos. 1 and 2 admittedly belonged to the first defendant. The first defendant had also purchased B schedule item Nos. 1 and 2 from out of the total extent of 22 cents. The plaintiffs alleged that under the pretext...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule mad returnable forthwith. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging an order under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act?) dated 18th June, 2015, copy of which is at Annexure 'A' to the Petition. 3. By this order, passed under section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai has, on an application made by the Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, directed as under: ORDER Application is allowed. Judicial Clerk, who is in-charge of Assistant Registrar of Bandra Center of Courts, Mumbai is appointed as the Court Commissioner to take possession of the secured assets viz 1)village Mohili, Tah. Kurla, and situated within registration district of Mumbai and sub-district of Mumbai suburban district beari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Deepak Gupta, J.1. Interesting questions arise in these matters. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 2(k) of the H.P.Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (here-inafter referred to as the Rent Act) sometimes declares the area of Kandaghat to be an urban area and sometimes this notification is withdrawn. When the area of Kandaghat was not within the purview of the Rent Act, civil suits were filed for eviction of the tenants. In the mean time, the area was brought within the ambit of the Rent Act. However, before the decrees could be passed or executed fresh notification was issued again bring the area within the purview of the Rent Act. Later this notification was also withdrawn. Now, the area of Kandaghat has again been declared to be an urban area and thus the Rent Act is again applicable. This has given rise to various disputed questions of law with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to pass a decree and also in respect of the executability ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. The Petitioner, Airports Authority of India has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 26 May 2008. 2. The Tribunal, by the impugned Award, has directed the Petitioner to treat the workers involved in the Reference as permanent employees of the Petitioner, and to pay them wages and consequential benefits at par with other permanent employees, from the date of Reference, that is 7 March 2003. 3. The Petitioner is a statutory body, constituted under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. The Respondent No.1, Indian Airports Employees Union (the Union) is a trade union, which seeks to espouse the cause of the workers involved in the Reference. The Petitioner carries out its activities at various places in India in around 120 airports in the country, including the airport at Mumbai, the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport. For discharging its duties, the Petitioner engages permanent e...
Tag this Judgment!