Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 95 results (0.008 seconds)

Jun 27 2005 (HC)

The Managment of S.K.F. Bearings India Ltd. Vs. Mr. S.M. Ravi Kumar an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

Reported in : [2006(109)FLR580]; ILR2006KAR445

..... officers - (1) the appropriate government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint such number of persons as it thinks fit, to be conciliation officers, charged with the duty of mediating in and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.(2) a conciliation officer may be appointed for a specified area or for specified industries in a specified area or for one ..... and keeping in mind the object of the power conferred on him. from the scheme of the act, it is clear that conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industries peace. therefore, once the conciliation officer is satisfied that there is an existing industrial dispute or ..... as convening of a meeting between the management and the workmen. from the scheme of the act it is clear that the conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industrial peace. therefore, it would not be permissible for him not to initiate conciliation proceedings, if in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2005 (HC)

The Bangalore District and Bangalore Rural District Central Co-op. Ban ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-03-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR377; 2005(2)KarLJ81

orderk. bhakthavatsala, j.1. in this batch of writ petitions the petitioner/co-operative bank seeks direction to respondent no. 4 to effect entries as to charge in the revenue records in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule as per sections 127 to 129 of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964.2. the respondent nos. 1 to 4 are represented by sri. shashidhar karamadi, learned government pleader, the respondent no. 5 is represented by sri k. suman.3. with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, heard arguments for final disposal.4. the brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the batch of writ petitions may be stated as under;-the petitioner/co-operative bank raised a dispute in no. jrb.dis/912/93-94 against the 5th respondent viz, vyalikaval house building co-operative society (in short, 'the society')as the society did not repay loan of rs. 15.50 crores, before the joint registrar of co-operative societies, bangalore division, and also obtained orders dated 27.10.1994, 23.11,1999, 23.11.2002 and 5.2.2003 as per annexures-a, a1, a2 and a3, respectively, for attachment of the immovable properties of the society. the petitioner/bank has given public notice in deccan herald daily newspaper dated 26.2.2004 bringing to the notice of the general public and the third parties regarding lien/charge of the bank over the lands in question and cautioning the general public not to enter into any negotiation with reference to the schedule properties. further, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2005 (HC)

Venkappa Hunashikatti and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-04-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)KarLJ201

orderr. gururajan, j.1. writ petition no. 31479 of 2004 is filed by venkappa hunasikatti challenging the order of the land tribunal dated 15-6-2004 at annexure-c in the case on hand. writ petition nos. 33646 to 33648 of 2004 are filed by suresh ambiger and two others challenging this very order. both the petitions are taken up together for disposal.2. facts in w.p. no. 31479 of 2004: petitioner's father somappa hunasikatti filed form 7 before the land tribunal, bilagi in respect of the lands bearing sy. nos. 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 of kolur village in bilagi taluk, bagalkot district. the tribunal by its order dated 6-9-1975 allowed the application and granted occupancy rights in favour of somappa. necessary entries have been carried out in the revenue register in respect of the lands. as per conditions of grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands, lands could not be sold to any one within a period of 15 years from the date of conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. it is stated that after the period of non-alienation i.e., after a lapse of 23 years from the date of grant, the lands have been sold in favour of three persons and they are in possession as on today. name of the petitioner's father was entered in respect of the said lands. the third respondent claims to be the son of govindappa hunasikatti who is the brother of the petitioner's father. in 1995 he applied to the village accountant seeking to modify the mutation entry and to enter his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2005 (HC)

Ravikirthi Shetty and ors. Vs. Jagathpala Shetty (Deceased) by L.Rs

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant194; 2005(2)KarLJ32

b.s. patil, j.1. in the suit for partition brought by jagathpala shetty (plaintiff) against his brother ravikirthi shetty (defendant 1) and his two sisters vijayamma and nagarathnamma (defendants 2 and 3 respectively), the court below by the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1993 decreed the suit. being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this regular first appeal.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranks obtained in the court below. few facts, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be set out as under:3. the plaintiff-jagathpala shetty and defendant 1-ravikirthi shetty are the sons of late raju shetty. defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of late raju shetty. the relationship between the parties is not disputed. the case of the plaintiff being that b schedule properties to the memorandum of plaint were acquired by the late father of the plaintiff and the defendants under a registered partition deed of the year 1927 and that upon the death of raju shetty who died inter-state on 15-2-1980 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as the sole surviving heirs, himself and the defendants succeeded to the estate of the deceased. the plaintiff has further contended that defendant 1 who was his elder brother and was an influential man both in the family and in the locality managed to bring about a document purporting to be a bequest by his father of the property in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2005 (HC)

Rifahul Muslimeen Education Trust and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant203; 2005(2)KarLJ325

orderr. gururajan, j.1. petitioners are minority institutions established by the respective trusts/societies for the purpose of imparting education to the students in mysore town without grant-in-aid code. petitioners have established schools for different categories of students, more particularly the minority students of mysore town. having established the necessary infrastructure in the form of building and other facilities for imparting education for the students in petitioners' institutions, they have been granted aid by the state government. they are spending considerable amount of money for education purposes. they have the protection under articles 29 and 30 of the constitution of india. petitioners state that the state government took a decision to extend akshara dasoha scheme i.e., to provide midday meal to children studying in government schools. petitioners state that the respondents are under legal duty to provide necessary infrastructure to the management. they are spending considerable amount of money in the matter of education, providing midday meal would mean higher expenditure. they say that they cannot afford such expenditure.2. according to petition averments, 2nd respondent issued a circular and it made available rs. 1,31 ps. for each of the children for providing midday meal. it also provides 90 gms. of rice, 20 gms. of toor dal, 5 gms. of salt, 3 gms. of oil and 25 gms. of vegetables. rs. 1.31 ps. is totally insufficient. a minimum of rs. 7 to 8/- is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2005 (HC)

G.K. Mallikarjunappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-18-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)KarLJ205

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. this writ petition before this court by the purchaser of a granted land is the second round of litigation. the subject-matter land, a extent of 3 acres 31 guntas in sy. no. 51 of ganadakatte village, channagiri taluk in davangere district, is a piece of agricultural land which had been granted in favour of one kariyappa-father of the third respondent -a person belonging to adi karnataka community [scheduled caste] in terms of grant/saguvall chit dated 6-2-1957. it is this land that the grantee had sold in favour of one kariyappa -father of the writ petitioner. the question is as to whether the said sale transaction is hit by the provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (for short, 'the act').2. the son of the grantee bhimappa third respondent herein - had filed an application before the assistant commissioner, praying for invalidation of the sale and for restoration of the land in his favour on the premise that the sale was in violation of the terms of the grant.3. the application was registered and notice was issued to the petitioner, who was in possession of the land. the proceedings culminated in allowing the application in terms of the order dated 29-4-1992 and the sale was held void, as it was in violation of the condition of the grant that the land should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years and therefore directed resumption of the land in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2005 (HC)

Dr. Madan Kumar Stanley Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences and an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-16-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)KarLJ462

ordern.k. patil, j. 1. the petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 15-3-2001 passed by the 1st respondent bearing no. ao:est-v:lc:mks:7188-b:2000-01 vide annexure-h, has presented this writ petition.2. the undisputed facts of the case are that; the petitioner earlier had filed a writ petition before this court in no. 18008 of 1999 against the recommendations of the enquiry committee at paras 4.01 and 4.04. the said writ petition was rejected of by this court on 18th june, 1999 with the observation that, 'if any action has to be taken in pursuance of the report, such action can only be in accordance with law. therefore, if any action is to be taken for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as deputy librarian in pursuance of the said report, necessarily the university has to issue a show-cause notice and hear the petitioner and then take a decision in accordance with law. it is open for the petitioner to file objections to the show-cause notice issued by the respondents taking a specific ground that his appointment as the deputy librarian is not illegal and his appointment does not call for cancellation. the university has to take the explanation into account and then proceed in the matter in accordance with law'.. further, it is observed that, 'if the petitioner justifies his appointment and satisfies that there is no cause for cancellation, the university may not cancel his appointment'. after the disposal of the said writ petition, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2005 (HC)

The Registrar General Vs. Sri Gundu Rao and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-15-2005

Reported in : 2005CriLJ3463; ILR2005KAR1990; 2005(4)KarLJ593

orderashok b. hinchigeri, j.1. this contempt proceedings are initiated by this court on its own motion. the petition is presented under article 215 of the constitution of india read with section 15(1) of the contempt of courts act, 1971. the subject matter of the complaint is that the accused have fabricated an interim order alleged to have been issued by this court in w.a.no. 6282/2002 and produced the same in the proceedings before the land tribunal, belthangadi.2. the brief facts of the case are that the accused no. 1 had a small piece of agricultural land for which a person claiming himself to be a tenant sought for occupancy rights. the accused filed w.p.no. 40893/2002 (lr) challenging the order dated 15-7-97 passed by the land tribunal, belthangadi. this writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge on 13-11-2002. that order was challenged in w.a.no. 6282/2002. the appeal papers were returned on 22-1-2003 to the advocate for the appellant (the accused no. 1 herein) for complying with the office objections. the papers were re-filed on 17-2-2003.3. meanwhile, the accused no. 1 produced a fabricated interim order dated 5-12-2002 purported to have been passed by the division bench of this court in w.a.no. 6282/2002. this production of the order was on 4-1-2003 in the office of the tahsildar-cum-secretary of the land tribunal, belthangadi. as the tahsildar did not find the seal of this court on the fabricated interim order and some of the writings were by hand, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2005 (HC)

P. Keshava Murthy Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secret ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-17-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR4772; 2006(3)KarLJ271

orderk.l. manjunath, j.1. i have heard the counsel for the review petitioner and govt. advocate for respondent-1 and counsel for respondents-2 to 4.2. the petitioner herein had filed writ petition in no. 41864/2002 challenging the endorsement refusing to pay the compensation to the petitioner in respect of acquisition of 4 acres of land situated in sy. no. 28 of doddasanne village of devanahali taluk. the endorsement further reads that compensation would be paid to the petitioner provided he gets a declaratory relief from the competent civil court. challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court contending that one rudramuni was the owner of 4 acres of land in sy. no. 28 of doddasanne village of devanahalli taluk and he had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 15.9.84. since the date of purchase, he was in lawful possession of the same. according to him. his vendor rudramuni had been granted this land under a grant certificate. it was the case of the petitioner that all the revenue records were standing in the name of the vendor prior to purchase of the property and subsequently mutation entries and other revenue entries were transferred to the petitioner. he has also produced the saguvali chit issued in favour of his vendor by the revenue authorities as per annexure-e to the writ petition. a notification under section 28(1) of the karnataka industrial area development act, 1966 was issued on 8.6.96 proposing to acquire the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2005 (HC)

Hanumath Bheemappa Sanadi and ors. Vs. Rudrappa Thammanna Sanadi and o ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-20-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant393; ILR2005KAR3430

v.g. sabhahit, j.1. this appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the court of civil judge (senior division) gokak, in ra. 30/1998 dated 5.12.2002 reversing the judgment and decree passed in o.s.no. 692/89 by the court of additional civil judge (junior division) raibag and consequently dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in o.s.no. 692/89.2. the essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows:the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for a decree for equitable partition awarding 2/3rd share or legitimate share of the plaintiffs with separate possession in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and costs.3. it is averred in the plaint that hanamant sanadi was the original propositus. he had three sons by name tammani, yamanappa and bhimappa and two daughters kallawwa and kashavva. kallawwa and kashawa have died. the plaintiff no. 6 is the wife. plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the children of bhimappa. plaintiff no. 5 is the son of yamanappa. plaintiff no. 6 is the wife of late yamanappa. plaintiff nos. 7 and 8 are daughters of yamanappa and defendants 1, 2, 3 are the sons of tammani. defendant no. 4 is the wife of late tammani. tangewa is the wife of defendant no. 2 and defendants 6 and 7 are the sons of defendant no. 1. it is averred in the plaint that original propositus was serving as sanadi for the village alakanur and he was .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //