Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 2003 Page 4 of about 118 results (0.009 seconds)

Oct 07 2003 (HC)

Ananth Engineering Works and anr. Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board (Kpt ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-07-2003

Reported in : 2004(3)KarLJ337

n.k. jain, c.j.1.these intra-court writ appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned single judge dated 19-1-2001, in w.p. no. 24526 of 1996 and connected writ petitions. common questions of fact and law are involved in all these appeals. as agreed, the appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. for the sake of convenience, the facts in w.p. no. 24526 of 1996, leading upto these appeals, are taken.writ petitioners in w.p. no. 24526 of 1996 (hereinafter called 'consumers') are the owners of special plot no. 2, situate in industrial estate, m.s.k. mill road, gulbarga. they have put up structure on the said site consisting of several tenements. on construction of cellar and first floor, an application was made to the kamataka electricity board (hereinafter called 'board') for supply of electricity to the said premises measuring 750 sq. metres, applying for the load of 6.72 k.ws., which was sanctioned by order dated 19-6-1995. on payment of the requisite amount, the consumers got connection to the celler and the ground floor. the board has in all, installed 28 meters to the said premises. thereafter, on completion of construction of the first floor comprising of the total plinth area of 947.12 sq. metres, the consumers applied for supply of 9.32 k.ws., for the entire building and for 13 additional connections. the board requested the consumers to pay a sum of rs. 3.55 lakhs being service charges for giving power, and in the alternative, authorised them to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2003 (HC)

ishwarappa Vs. Arunkumar

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-24-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant417; 2006(2)CTLJ91(Kar)

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. the appeal filed against the judgment and decree in r.a. no. 66/99 on the file of the addl. civil judge (sr. dn.), hubli, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in o.s. no. 483/96 on the file of the iii addl. civil judge (jr. dn.), hubli.2. the appellant is the defendant. the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant at ex.d.13 has been revoked and that the defendant does not have the authority of agency to represent the plaintiff under the power of attorney. further, seek an injunction against the defendant not to deal with the suit property.3. plaintiff was employed in indian army. he was allotted a site. the plaintiff executed power of attorney ex.d.13 in favour of defendant to attend to the construction of the building on the suit site and thereafter its management. it is said that defendant misusing the power of attorney indulged in excessive and reckless borrowings fastening unreasonable liabilities on the plaintiff. therefore seek a relief declaration with a consequential relief of injunction against the defendant not to deal with the suit property any more. the defendant contends that he has borrowed loans in his individual capacity and also borrowed loans on the strength of power of attorney from several persons and financial institutions encumbering the suit property. the defendant contends that, apart from the private loan of rs. 5 lakhs incurred, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2003 (HC)

Kanayyalal Vs. Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport C ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-22-2003

Reported in : III(2004)ACC500; 2004ACJ653

s.r. nayak, j.1. in an injury case the claimant not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (for short 'the act') and claimed more compensation under various heads. the appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 5.1.1999 passed in m.v.c. no. 350 of 1996 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal-iv at bijapur (for short 'the mact).2. the facts of the case in brief are as follows:the claimant oh 31.1.1996 sustained certain injuries in an accident involving motor vehicle (bus) owned by the respondent corporation. the fact that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the corporation's bus is not in controversy. therefore, there is no need for us to review the factual finding recorded by mact on actionable negligence attributed to the driver of the bus.3. the claimant who was aged 38 years on the date of accident claims to be a businessman dealing in textiles and earning monthly income of rs. 5,000. appellant-claimant claimed total compensation of rs. 11,25,000 on various heads.4. the claim of appellant was opposed by the corporation by filing a statement of objections denying the age, income and other claims made in the claim petition. the mact having regard to the pleadings of the parties and having framed necessary issues for decision-making, ultimately, awarded rs. 35,000 for pain and suffering, rs. 20,000 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2003 (HC)

S.P. Sridhar Vs. Government of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Chief Secretary ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-16-2003

Reported in : ILR2004KAR1521

ordern.k. patil, j. 1. the petitioners who are cl-1 licence holders assailing the legality and validity of the impugned rules dated 30.6.2003 vide annexure-g have presented these writ petitions. further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that so far as prayers b and c are concerned, those two prayers may be dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the order passed by the apex court in (state of karnataka and anr. v. k.v. amarnath and ors. civil petition no. 3610/1998 dd 30.8.03). the submissions made by the learned counsel is placed on record. prayers (b) &(c) are accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.2. now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners confines these petitions so far as prayer (a) is concerned as stated supra. these petitioners claiming to be cl-1 licencee challenged the constitutional validity of the rules notified in the official gazette dated 30.6.2003 vide annexures a1 to a6, respectively thereby amending the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968, karnataka excise (.,) is made 'sole distributor' in liquor trade. further the case of the petitioners is that the system prevalent in the liquor trade is that the petitioner (cl-1 licencee) obtained transport permits from the excise department in respect of the products of the particular manufacturers and thereafter the petitioner sell the said products to a retailer (cl-2 licencee) and/or to a bar (cl-9 licencee), and other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 2003 (HC)

Executive Engineer and ors. Vs. Bharath Engineering Service Technocrat ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-12-2003

Reported in : ILR2004KAR1817

mohan shantana goudar, j.1. these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the ii addl. civil judge at mysore in a.c.s no. 3/91, 4/91 and 62/1991 whereby objections filed by the appellants to the awards made by the arbitrator have been rejected as time barred and the awards made a rule of the court. in the factual backdrop that we propose to set out hereunder, the appellant shall be referred to as the 'department' and the respondents as 'claimant' for the sake of convenience.2. the department invited tenders for different items of work in connection with construction of kabini right bank canal. the claimant emerged successful in regard to three items of work which were allotted to him for execution in terms of three separate agreements signed by the parties. these works were to be completed within the time stipulated in the respective agreement, failing which the department could rescind the contract and have the remainder of the work orworks executed through another agency, at the risk and cost of the claimant.3. the claimant could not despite extensions granted to him for the purpose, complete the execution of the works allotted to him within the extended period granted to him for the purpose. the contracts executed between the parties were therefore rescinded by the department after notice to the claimant and the balance of the work assigned to another agency for completion.4. the broad details of the said works were on the date of termination as under:i. agreement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2003 (HC)

K. Narayana Rao Vs. the Secretary, Department of Transport and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-11-2003

Reported in : I(2004)ACC119; ILR2003KAR4261

ordergururajan, j. 1. petitioner in this petition is seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash annexure-f dated 25-9-2002 issued by rule - 3 -- the commissioner for transport in karnataka. petitioner is the owner of new janatha motor driving school, bangalore. he has rich experience in motor driving school business. he says that licence is required to run a driving school. he has referred to various provisions in this regard. according to him, an instructor is required to be in the establishment, as his presence is always needed for completing the training course. petitioner approached for licence to the jurisdictional licencing authority with regard to appointment of qualified instructor either part time or full time. the licencing authority of bangalore central and the licencing authority of jayanagar, gave endorsements dated 19-10-2002 and 4-11-2002 stating that no such appointments could be made in terms of the rule. aggrieved by the said endorsements, petitioner approached the third respondents. the third respondent has stated that there is no bar of engaging part time instructor. the endorsements issued by the licencing authorities are filed at annexure-d and e and the endorsement issued by third respondent is filed at annexure-f. 2. heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.3. motor vehicles act provides for a licence in the matter of driving school. licence is required to be obtained in terms of the rule 24 (3) (iii) of the cmv rules .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2003 (HC)

Basavarajegowda Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta Trust's Dayananda Sagar ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-11-2003

Reported in : 2003(6)KarLJ130

orderm.f. saldanha, j.1. this civil revision petition was listed for hearing along with c.r.p. no. 1681 of 2003. the reason for this was because the education appellate tribunal has passed an order to the effect that the appeal filed to that forum is not maintainable in view of the existing position in law, the sequitur being that the petitioner would have to agitate his grievance under section 131 of the karnataka education act, 1983 before the revisional authority namely, the secretary, education of the state government. it is also relevant for me to mention the brief facts insofar as the petitioner who was an employee of the institution is alleged to have submitted a letter of resignation dated 22-12-2000 which was accepted by the management on the same day and consequently, effect has been given to that resignation. the case of the petitioner-employee is that even though the letter in question bears his handwriting and signature that it was extorted from him under very unfair circumstances and that therefore it has no effect in law. that position is contested by the management and the forum enquiring into the dispute will undoubtedly have to decide on the validity or otherwise of the letter dated 22-12-2000. the short question before this court is as to whether the tribunal was justified in having refused to exercise jurisdiction particularly, as pointed out by the petitioner's learned advocate after some amount of evidence had been recorded and the case was effectively .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2003 (HC)

Bhavani Agencies Vs. G.C. Colour Lab and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-10-2003

Reported in : I(2005)BC187; 2004(1)KarLJ421

orderk. ramanna, j.1. heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner regarding maintainability of the petition and perused the records.2. this revision petition is directed against the order dated 31-8-2001 passed by xii additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bangalore in p.c.r. no. 1911 of 2001 filed by the complainant for bouncing of cheque. whereby the trial court dismissed the complaint by holding that the complaint is hit by section 69(2) of the partnership act, therefore, feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has come up with this petition under section 397 of the cr. p.c.3. the case of the revision petitioner is that:this revision petitioner filed a private complaint in p.c.r. no. 1911 of 2001 against m/s. g.c. colour lab and another. respondent 1 is a partnership firm represented by its partner sri n.s. chandrakanth, 2nd respondent. respondent 1 issued a cheque for rs. 6,580/-, dated 24-2-2001, cheque no. 475626 to discharge the liability of the 1st respondent. after complying with the mandatory provisions, the revision petitioner filed a complaint under section 200 of the cr. p.c. for an offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act before the xii additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bangalore. so after recording the sworn statement, the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the private complaint filed against the respondent is hit by section 69(2) of the partnership act, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2003 (HC)

C.G. Amanulla Khan and ors. Vs. Anwar Khan

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-02-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant22; 2004(1)KarLJ142

v.g. sabhahit, j. 1. this appeal by defendants in o.s. no. 92 of 1993 on the file of the civil judge (senior division), chickmagalur, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-6-1998.2. the essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of parties before the trial court are as follows.--the plaintiff filed the suit, o.s. no. 92 of 1993 on 26-8-1993 for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to deliver his 2/11th share in the schedule properties and for a direction to enquire into mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of realization. the suit schedule property comprises of 2 house properties situate in chickmagalur. it is averred in the plaint that: the plaintiff and defendants are the children of gulame ghouse khan (hereinafter referred to as 'g.g. khan'), who was working as a driver; he died on 27-9-1964 at chickmagalur; g.g. khan had married smt. khuthejabi of kapu in south canara district and out of the said wedlock of g.g. khan and smt. khuthejabi, the plaintiff was born; after the death of the mother of the plaintiff-khuthejabi, g.g. khan married smt. ayesha of tumkur and she died within 15 days of the marriage; thereafter, g.g. khan married smt. husanabi of chickmagalur and out of the said wedlock, defendants 1 and 2 were born; after the death of smt. husanabi, g.g. khan married smt. fathimabi of chickmagalur and out of the said wedlock, defendants 3 to 6 were born. it is further averred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2003 (HC)

H.L. Narayanachar Vs. Revappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-01-2003

Reported in : ILR2003KAR4248; 2004(1)KarLJ559

ordergopala gowda, j. 1. the petitioner is the owner of land bearing sy.no. 484 measuring 9-00 acres situated in amalapur village in hospet taluk. by an order dated 18.8.1981 occupancy rights was granted in favour of the petitioner for 9-00 acres of land. by the impugned order at annexure-b dated 29.6.2002, the order dated 18.8.1981 is modified and occupancy right is granted to the petitioner only for 4-00 acres and the remaining 5-00 acres is granted to respondents 1 to 3 jointly. being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned order. 2. respondents 1 and 2 also filed application-seeking registration of occupancy rights of the same land to an extent of 5-00 acres. their claim was rejected by the land tribunal by an order-dated 11.9.1986. the same was challenged in r.a.no. 192/87, which was later numbered as w.p.no. 30270/98. the said writ petition was allowed on 7.7.1999 quashing the order dated 11.9.1986 of the land tribunal and the matter was remitted to the land tribunal for fresh disposal of the applications of the petitioner herein and respondents 1 and 2. accordingly, the impugned order is passed by the land tribunal. the petitioner was also a party to the aforesaid writ petition. hence, the order passed therein, which has become final, is binding on the petitioner, 3. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 18.8.1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner for 9-00 acres of land was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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