Karnataka Court January 2006 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.
H. Sreenivasa S/O Late Hanumanthaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka Repres ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KCCR37(DB)
1. The petitioner is an Assistant Drugs Controller and Licensing Authority in the Drugs Control Department of the Government of Karnataka. As per Annexure-A.1 order dated 19.11.2005 passed by the first respondent-Government, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action, The said order was passed under Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Challenging the said order dated 19.11.2005, the petitioner filed Application No. 8721/2005 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. While issuing notice to the respondents in the said application, the Tribunal passed an interim order dated 25.11.2005 staying the impugned order dated 19.11.2005 till 29.11.2005. In the interim order dated 25.11.2005, the Tribunal observed that it wanted to look into the records and the reports submitted by the applicant and also directed the Government Pleader to s...
Rajesh and anr. Vs. State by Station House Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1574; ILR2006KAR1203; 2006(2)KarLJ111
ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is, whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing the request made by the petitioners to permit them to cross-examine P.W. 1.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Trial Court has refused to grant permission to the petitioners to cross-examine P.W. 1 solely on the ground that the application is devoid of merits and they have not disclosed in their application as to what questions the petitioners intend to put to P.W. 1. It was further submitted that the ruling referred to by the Trial Court is not properly considered by the Trial Judge inasmuch as the observations of the Apex Court, which is referred to in the very same judgment of Gujarath High Court goes to indicate that the Court should be magnanimous to permi...
Surfa Coats (Bangalore) Ltd. Vs. the Authority for Clarifications and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1285
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the white cement is a cement covered under Entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 ('the Act' for short) and Notification No. FD 11 GET 2002 dated 30-3-2002 and taxable under Section 3(1) of the Act at the rate of 5%?2. In order to answer this controversy, a reference to Entry 9 of the First schedule to the Act requires to be made. Entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act is as Under:Cement, water and weather proofing components'.3. At this stage, we intend to make it clear that there are several other entries under the First Schedule to the Act. Whenever the Legislature wanted to include all kinds of materials, it would specifically use the words, 'all kinds' immediately after the commodity. For instance, there is an entry at Sl. No. 10, which speaks of chemicals of all kinds'. Similarly, Entry at Sl. No.2 speaks of arms of all kinds' including Guns, R...
N.C. Chandrashekar Vs. Sidda Gangamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC188; 2007ACJ1747; AIR2006Kant164; 2006(2)KarLJ386
K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. Tribunal has awarded compensation to the petitioners in M.V.C, No. 1559 of 2000 for death of one Rangaswamy. Tribunal directed the owner-dealer to pay the compensation. Claim against the insurer is dismissed.2. Facts disclose that M/s. Bajaj Transport Limited is the marketing wing of the manufacturer. The appellant is the dealer. The appellant placed indent for delivery of vehicles at Davanagere. The appellant entered into contract with M/s. Chandru Transport for delivery of the vehicles from Pune to Davanagere. The 5th respondent has issued a transit policy. The vehicle in question is a tempo tax, a passenger service vehicle but the vehicle was yet to be registered as a public service vehicle as on the date of transit and the accident. The driver of the tempo tax permitted the deceased to travel in the tempo. During the course of journey, the accident occurred. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the insurer on the ground that the transit permit does not cr...
Gurulingappa Vs. Channappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant220; 2006(2)KarLJ499
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. Regular Second Appeal No. 867 of 2003 by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanjangud, in R.A. No. 105 of 1999, dated 11-8-2003, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nanjangud, in O.S. No. 70 of 1991, dated 31-7-1999, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Regular Second Appeal No. 866 of 2003 by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanjangud, in R.A. No. 16 of 1998, dated 11-8-2003, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nanjangud, in O.S. No. 525 of 1990, dated 21-1-1998 only in respect of declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of southern 35 V2 guntas of land, out of the suit schedule property and dismissing the suit of...
S. Kugashankar Vs. Subhash Chand Goel S/O Lt. NaraIn Dass Goel,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR3689; 2008(4)KarLJ429
1. These regular first appeals have gained access to this Court under the provisions of Section 96 of the CPC assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned XII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 2799/1987 by which verdict, the learned Judge has decreed the suit of the first respondent herein by judgment dated 5-3-1998, partly.2. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall be referred to according to their ranking in the trial Court, in that the Appellant and respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants and first respondent was the plaintiff.3. The factual matrix manifesting from the records reveals - Subhash Chand Goel instituted a suit under the provisions of Section 26 CPC seeking a decree for specific performance of the contract under two agreements dated 29-10-1979 purporting to be the agreements of sale between him and the first defendant in respect of immovable properties - popularly known as Block Nos. 1 and 2 bearing Municipal Nos. 4, 9/5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11/...
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KarLJ448
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The first petitioner is the Trade Union and the second petitioner is its President. They have filed this writ petition for a writ of quo warranto declaring that the appointment and continuation of the third respondent as Managing Director of the second respondent-Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board is illegal and for grant of consequential reliefs.2. The first respondent-State Government appointed the third respondent as the Managing Director of the Board with effect from 31-1-1998 as per the Notification at Annexure-D. On the date of such appointment, third respondent was working as Chief Engineer of the second respondent-Board. Therefore, the petitioners herein preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 44001 of 1995, dated 12-4-2002 (Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ILR 2002 Kar. 2435) challenging the aforesaid appointment. The main ground of attack was, the said appoint...
Channayya and anr. Vs. Annapurna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ538
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharwad, in R.A. No. 104 of 2000, dated 25-7-2003 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharwad, in O.S. No. 688 of 1989, dated 29-9-2000, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10-5-1980.The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows.-2. The plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 38 of 1985 seeking for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10-5-1980 averring that defendants 1 and 2 are known to the plaintiff and her husband since a long time. Taking undue advantage of the acquaintance, defendant 1 came to the house of the plaintiff and met her and her husband, somewhere in the month...
B. Ravikumar Vs. Ananth
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1577; ILR2006KAR792; 2006(1)KarLJ581
ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed praying for quashing the complaint that was registered against the petitioner herein and the consequent proceedings before the learned C.J.M., Chickamagalur, in C.C. No. 434/2005 (earlier numbered as C.C. No. 3/2003), and also to set aside the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, dated 5.2.2005 in Crl.R.P. No. 53/2004.2. The facts in brief are to the effect that the respondent filed a complaint before the C. J.M., Chickmagalur, under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. requesting the said Court to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 474 of the I.P.C. alleging that the petitioner herein, along with two other persons, construed and forged the documents more particularly the GP.A. and got executed the sale deed with respect to the property owned by the father of the respondent. The Learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation and following the sub...
Shivappa Vs. Administrator, Mahadev Textile Mills
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant114; ILR2006KAR1175; 2006(1)KarLJ569
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubli in R.A. No. 62 of 1994 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Munsiff, Hubli in O.S. No. 190 of 1987.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No. 190 of 1987 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property to the extent of 150 x 50 ft. in CTS No. 103 situated at Karwar Road, Hubli and running a firewood depot. Originally the property was in Sy. Nos. 107/1 and 107/2 belonging to one Desai family and since the plaintiff was obedient to them, they allotted the said property to the plaintiff and he is running firewood depot therein for more than 30-40 years since the time of his father. Alleging that the respondent-defendant is trying to take possession of the sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »