vegeta/nlplegal · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 1 26.8k
therefore, the Committee who made the appointments, was certainly wrong in the
first place to make such appointments or to embark upon the process as important
as recruitment, when its term stood already expired.
But the Court cannot ignore another aspect of the matter that when
the termination orders were passed, at that time, the Committee which had made
the appointments and whose term had expired on 1.6.1994, its term had been
extended till 1997 vide order dated 16.6.1995. Therefore, the impugned orders
which have been passed on the basis of resolution taken by the successor
Committee, could not have done so for the reason that its own existence stood
extinguished with the revival of the erstwhile Managing Committee. Even if the
resolution had been passed during this intervening period, when the existence of
the earlier Committee stood extinguished, or the process for its extension was
under consideration, the respondents were not within their rights to order
Dass Ghanshyam
2013.09.30 11:06
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh
C.W.P. No.19751 of 1996 -4-
termination on the ground that the term of the erstwhile committee stood expired
on 1.6.1994. Rather the actions of the erstwhile Committee would be protected by
the deeming continuity conferred by the extension order, legitimizing all actions
taken by the Committee.
Evidently, this is why no other reason has been ascribed in the
impugned order except to say that the petitioners were temporary and were on
probation and thus, their services could be terminated without assigning any
reason.
The real reason becomes evident if the resolution of the successor
committee is to be seen that it was their anxiety to undo what its predecessor
committee had done that lead to the passing of the resolution which per-se would
not have caused any prejudice to the petitioners unless it was given effect to by
virtue of the impugned orders Annexures P-28 and P-28/A.
These orders, in the opinion of this Court, could not have been
passed by the successor Committee considering the fact that the term of the
Committee which had made selections, was extended upto 1997. It is for this
reason that this Court feels that the impugned orders have been passed for
extraneous reasons and are not true to the language ascribed therein. Evidently,
there is more to it than what meets the eye and the impugned orders cannot be
termed to be the orders of termination simpliciter on the basis of the conditions
imposed in the appointment letter.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the cause of the
petitioners has been severely prejudiced. The writ petition is accepted and the
impugned orders are set aside. The petitioners would thus, be entitled to be
appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers and shall be deemed to be in service from
the date when they were appointed. However, since they have not worked for this
period, they will not be entitled to monetary benefits and only notional benefits
Dass Ghanshyam
2013.09.30 11:06
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh
C.W.P. No.19751 of 1996 -5-
would be given to them such as seniority etc.
(MAHESH GROVER)
September 25, 2013 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
Dass Ghanshyam
2013.09.30 11:06
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh
<\|endofjudgement\|>
Karnataka High Court
Sri K.N Basavarajaiah vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 4 January, 2014Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH
M.F.A.No.3931 /2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
K.N.Basavarajaiah
s/o Nanjundaiah
aged 37 years, R/o Kaggere village,
Bellavi Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk & Dist. .. Appellant
( By Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah and
Sri M.B.Ryakhe, Advocates)
AND:
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co.Ltd., mZenith House,
Keshavrao Khade Marg,
Mahalakshmi, Mumbai,
Service address M.G.Road,
Tumkur.
2. Manjunatha K.M.
S/o K.C.Mahadevaiah,
44 years, R/o Kanchenahalli village,
Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur Dist. .. Respondents
( By Sri K.R.Kumar, Advocate for R-2
and Sri B.C.Shivannegowda, Advocate for R-1 )
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against
the judgment and award dated 29.1.2011 passed in
MVC.No.380/2009 on the file of the Addl.Senior Civil Judge & CJM,
MACT, Tumkur, awarding compensation of Rs.2,58,730/- with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court

therefore, the Committee who made the appointments, was certainly wrong in the

first place to make such appointments or to embark upon the process as important

as recruitment, when its term stood already expired.

But the Court cannot ignore another aspect of the matter that when

the termination orders were passed, at that time, the Committee which had made

the appointments and whose term had expired on 1.6.1994, its term had been

extended till 1997 vide order dated 16.6.1995. Therefore, the impugned orders

which have been passed on the basis of resolution taken by the successor

Committee, could not have done so for the reason that its own existence stood

extinguished with the revival of the erstwhile Managing Committee. Even if the

resolution had been passed during this intervening period, when the existence of

the earlier Committee stood extinguished, or the process for its extension was

under consideration, the respondents were not within their rights to order

Dass Ghanshyam

2013.09.30 11:06

I am the author of this

document

high court chandigarh

C.W.P. No.19751 of 1996 -4-

termination on the ground that the term of the erstwhile committee stood expired

on 1.6.1994. Rather the actions of the erstwhile Committee would be protected by

the deeming continuity conferred by the extension order, legitimizing all actions

taken by the Committee.

Evidently, this is why no other reason has been ascribed in the

impugned order except to say that the petitioners were temporary and were on

probation and thus, their services could be terminated without assigning any

reason.

The real reason becomes evident if the resolution of the successor

committee is to be seen that it was their anxiety to undo what its predecessor

committee had done that lead to the passing of the resolution which per-se would

not have caused any prejudice to the petitioners unless it was given effect to by

virtue of the impugned orders Annexures P-28 and P-28/A.

These orders, in the opinion of this Court, could not have been

passed by the successor Committee considering the fact that the term of the

Committee which had made selections, was extended upto 1997. It is for this

reason that this Court feels that the impugned orders have been passed for

extraneous reasons and are not true to the language ascribed therein. Evidently,

there is more to it than what meets the eye and the impugned orders cannot be

termed to be the orders of termination simpliciter on the basis of the conditions

imposed in the appointment letter.

For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the cause of the

petitioners has been severely prejudiced. The writ petition is accepted and the

impugned orders are set aside. The petitioners would thus, be entitled to be

appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers and shall be deemed to be in service from

the date when they were appointed. However, since they have not worked for this

period, they will not be entitled to monetary benefits and only notional benefits

Dass Ghanshyam

2013.09.30 11:06

I am the author of this

document

high court chandigarh

C.W.P. No.19751 of 1996 -5-

would be given to them such as seniority etc.

(MAHESH GROVER)

September 25, 2013 JUDGE

GD

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

Dass Ghanshyam

2013.09.30 11:06

I am the author of this

document

high court chandigarh

<|endofjudgement|>

Karnataka High Court

Sri K.N Basavarajaiah vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 4 January, 2014Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

M.F.A.No.3931 /2011 (MV)

BETWEEN:

K.N.Basavarajaiah

s/o Nanjundaiah

aged 37 years, R/o Kaggere village,

Bellavi Hobli,

Tumkur Taluk & Dist. .. Appellant

( By Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah and

Sri M.B.Ryakhe, Advocates)

AND:

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Co.Ltd., mZenith House,

Keshavrao Khade Marg,

Mahalakshmi, Mumbai,

Service address M.G.Road,

Tumkur.

2. Manjunatha K.M.

S/o K.C.Mahadevaiah,

44 years, R/o Kanchenahalli village,

Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk,

Tumkur Dist. .. Respondents

( By Sri K.R.Kumar, Advocate for R-2

and Sri B.C.Shivannegowda, Advocate for R-1 )

2

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against

the judgment and award dated 29.1.2011 passed in

MVC.No.380/2009 on the file of the Addl.Senior Civil Judge & CJM,

MACT, Tumkur, awarding compensation of Rs.2,58,730/- with

interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court