Karnataka Dharwad Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
R.H. Raddi Vs. the High Court of Karnataka, Rep., by Its Registrar Gen ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
Shylendra Kumar,J1. These appeals are by three former Judicial Officers who had retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., on completing the age of 58 years, but who were not happy with and had questioned the orders of retiring them compulsorily at the age of 58, by filing writ petitions before this Court, mainly on the ground that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years.2. It was the stand of the appellants that in terms of Rule 95-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, the Rules), the age of retirement of Judicial Officers shall be raised to 60 years subject to the following conditions viz.,(1) The High Court of Karnataka should assess and evaluate the record of the Judicial Officer for his continued utility well within the time before the attains the age of 58 years by following the procedure for the compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of the extended superannuation age ...
R.H. Raddi Vs. the High Court of Karnataka, Rep., by Its Registrar Gen ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
Shylendra Kumar,J 1. These appeals are by three former Judicial Officers who had retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., on completing the age of 58 years, but who were not happy with and had questioned the orders of retiring them compulsorily at the age of 58, by filing writ petitions before this Court, mainly on the ground that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. 2. It was the stand of the appellants that in terms of Rule 95-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, the Rules), the age of retirement of Judicial Officers shall be raised to 60 years subject to the following conditions viz., (1) The High Court of Karnataka should assess and evaluate the record of the Judicial Officer for his continued utility well within the time before the attains the age of 58 years by following the procedure for the compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of the extended superannuation a...
The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal is a typical example of the most cantankerous and irresponsible manner in which the nationalized Insurance Companies function in our Country.2. In the present appeal, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was the insurer providing cover to the owner of a lorry bearing Reg.No.Ka-37/5426, owner by name, Mahmad Hussain Mehboob Sah, has been arrayed as respondent No.6 in this appeal and the policy is issued by the Insurance Company in favour of the said owner, which has covered the risks of the insured not only in respect of the claim under the Motor Vehicle Act, but also claims arising out of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 [for short, the Act].3. The driver of the vehicle had died on 17.03.2006 while in the course of employment, but not exactly while driving the vehicle. In respect of this incident, a claim application seeking for compensation had been filed before the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Bellary Division, Davanagere. The...
Sangappa Ramappa Jampur Vs. Honnappa and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
(Prayer: RFA Filed U/S 96 of CPC Against The Judgment And Decree DT.2.11.2006 Passed In O.S.NO.42/1998 On The File Of The Civil Judge (SR.DN.) And PRL.JMFC., Ranebennur. Partly Decreeing The Suit For Partition And Separate Possession.) D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.42/1998 on the file of the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Prl. JMFC at Ranebennur is the appellant u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Suit was one for partition of the joint family properties impleading the elder brother 0.of the plaintiff as the 1st defendant; elder sister of the plaintiff as the 2nd defendant, daughter of the 2nd defendant as the 3rd defendant and the step mother of the plaintiff as the 4th defendant Plaintiff had claimed half share in the suit schedule properties and it is not in dispute that suit items 1A1 and 1A2, the two parcels of agricultural land abutting one another had been purchased in the name of the 1st defendant. The first purchase was on 02.05.1945 when the 1st defen...
Nagappa Vs. Gangappa
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
B.S. Patil, J 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.08.201 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Hungund in Election Petition No. 1/2010. By the impugned order, the court below has allowed the election petition filed by the respondent herein and has declared him as elected candidate by setting aside the election of the petitioner. 2. Election to the members or the Grama Panchayat, Hiremagi was held on 12.05.2010. The votes were counted or 17.05.2010. It was noticed that the petitioner and the respondent had obtained equal votes i.e. 200 each. Therefore, the method of declaring the candidate elected by lot was adopted as per the Rules. The petitioner emerged successful in the lot and was declared elected. The respondent herein, aggrieved by the decision, filed the election petition challenging the said election. The court below appointed a court commissioner on 2.7.2011 to recount the votes. The court commissioner reported that the respondent had ...
Nagappa Vs. Gangappa
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
B.S. Patil, J 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.08.201 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Hungund in Election Petition No. 1/2010. By the impugned order, the court below has allowed the election petition filed by the respondent herein and has declared him as elected candidate by setting aside the election of the petitioner. 2. Election to the members or the Grama Panchayat, Hiremagi was held on 12.05.2010. The votes were counted or 17.05.2010. It was noticed that the petitioner and the respondent had obtained equal votes i.e. 200 each. Therefore, the method of declaring the candidate elected by lot was adopted as per the Rules. The petitioner emerged successful in the lot and was declared elected. The respondent herein, aggrieved by the decision, filed the election petition challenging the said election. The court below appointed a court commissioner on 2.7.2011 to recount the votes. The court commissioner reported that the respondent had ...
M/S. Eureka Builders, Rep. by Its Partner Shyam Ramasa Jartarghar and ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
(Prayer: This CRP is filed under Section 115 of CPC., against the Order dated 05.08.2011 passed in OS No.37/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli dismissing the I.A.No.III filed under Section 8 of Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 etc.) 1. Revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is by the applicant whose application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the Arbitration Act) has been rejected by the impugned Order in O.S. No.37/2010. 2. Revision is posted for admission after notice to the respondents. The respondent Nos.2 to 7 have entered caveat. 3. Heard regarding admission. The factual matrix to which the learned counsel have adverted to, and manifest from the records, reveals: a) The 1st respondent in this revision Gulabchand, a person of unsound mind, represented by the next friend and guardian-Nilesh, filed suit in O.S.No.37/2010 seeking decree: a) for partition and separation possession of his 1/5th ...
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd . Vs. Bannemma and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
(Prayer: MFA/Crob. Is filed u/o 47 Rule 22 of CPC, r/w. SEC. 173(1) of MV Act, 1988, against the judgment and order DTD:09-01-2009 passed in MVC No.116/2008 on the file of the civil judge (Sr.Dn.) and member, MACT, Gangavathi, awarding the compensation of Rs.1175,895/0- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.) 1. Insurers appeal against the judgment questioning the direction of the Tribunal to indemnify the insured to pay compensation to the claimants. 2. Appeal and cross-objection are admitted and taken up for final disposal by consent. 3. From what learned counsel of both sides have adverted, the genesis of appeals is a motor vehicle accident on 26.06.2007 involving a motor cycle bearing No.KA 37/L1346 and a stationery lorry bearing No.KA 25/8235 in which the rider of the motor cycle Basanna suffered injuries and died. The pillion rider also died in the said accident. The legal heirs of victims lodged claim seeking compensation. 4. The insured own...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›