Karnataka Court October 2007 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.
Central Bureau of Investigation Represented by Its Superintendent of P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ656; ILR2008(1)Kar1144; 2008(2)KLJ666; 2008(1)KCCR248; 2008(3)KCCRSN235; 2008(1)AIRKarR144; 2008CriLJNOC332; 2008(2)AICLR612
A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. This revision by the CBI represented by the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore, is directed against the order passed by the XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, in Spl. CC No. 184/2001 dated 20-08-2004 discharging the respondents - accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as under:One Sri. Jayaramaiah, S/o. Late. Dodde Gowda, a resident of Bilagumba Village, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore, submitted a written complaint to the Inspector of Police, CBI, Ganganagar, Bangalore, on 29.01.2001 alleging that the first accused - the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Channapatna Division, is harassing the complainant for bribe in connection with the transfer and posting of Smt. R. Jayamma, the wife of the complainant, who was working as Branch Post Master at K.P. Doddi since 1999. It is sai...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Regional Office Rep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2009(5)AIRKarR23:AIR2009NOC2479.
C.R. Kumaraswamy, J.1. This is a miscellaneous first appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Judgment and award dated 06.07.2004 passed in M.V.C. No. 4256/2000 on the file of IX Addl. Judge, Member, MACT-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, SCCH No. 7, allowing the case in part and awarding compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.3. Parties will be referred with reference to the status in the claims Tribunal.4. The contention of the claimant in the Tribunal is as under:That on 18.08.2000 at about 11.45 p.m. claimant was occupant of the canter bearing No. KA-02-2605. He was on duty. He was passenger travelling from Bangalore towards Tumkur and when it reached near Bommanahalli on NH-4, the driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationed lorry bearing No. MP-07-B-9418. Consequently, claimant sus...
Mrs. Sunita Nambiar W/O Mr. P.S. Nambiar Vs. Karnataka State Financial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2057; 2008(4)KarLJ408; 2008(1)AIRKarR194; AIR2008NOC409(DB); 2008(1)AIRKarR194; AIR2008NOC409(DB).
Manjula Chellur and A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ.1. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.1.2006 passed in W.P.455/2006 has preferred the present appeal challenging the same.2. The Writ Petition was filed seeking quashing of the further proceedings in Misc. petition 13/2003 against the appellant on the file of District Judge, Mysore.3. The facts which are brought on record, in brief, are stated as under:Mysore Panels and Boards Pvt. Ltd availed loans from the respondent-Corporation for establishing an industry for processing and manufacture of plywood panel and boards and also for running the industry. At some point of tune, the management came to be transferred to the 3rd party Mr. S.G. Sundar and others. Thereafter, from 22.11.2000 the appellant ceased to be the Director of the company. The liabilities of the company were guaranteed by the Directors of the new management by executing fresh loan papers.Even the new management was not able to perf...
The Management of Davangere Cotton Mills Vs. C.R. Krishna and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR24]; ILR2007KAR4702; 2008(2)KarLJ212; (2008)IILLJ733Kant
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. These two writ appeals arise out of the common order dated 6.10.2005, allowing in part, W.P. Nos. 31507 and 31508 of 2000, by the learned Single Judge.2. The 1st respondent, in both these appeals, were the writ petitioners. They had filed the said writ petitions, for directing the 2nd respondent, i.e., Labour Officer and Claims Authority ('the authority' for short), under Minimum Wages Act ('the Act' for short), Chitradurga, to pass an order, by taking into account the difference of minimum wages for the period from 1.1.1991 to 31.1.1998 and to pay penalty in terms of Section 20 of the Act and for other consequential reliefs.3. The case of the writ petitioners in brief is that, they were* working as 'measurers' under the appellant and they were entitled to be paid the minimum wages in terms of the notification No. SWL 18 LMW 86 dated 19.8.19.87, Annexure-A to the writ petitions. They had filed applications before the 'authority' under Section 20(2) of 'the A...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Ashok Venkatesh Desai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR5203; 2008(1)KarLJ20
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Land bearing R.S. No. 115/2 measuring 4 acres 26 guntas, situated at Hiremuramatti village, Bagalkot Taluk, was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short), on 25.7.1996. The said property was acquired for the public purpose of upper Krishna Project, i.e., submergence in the back water of Almatti Reservoir. The final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 15.9.1997 acquiring the said property for the said purpose. The LAO has passed the award on 27.2.1999, determining the market value of the property at Rs. 18,351/- per acre.2. The land owner being dissatisfied with the award made by the LAO, contending that the compensation has not been determined in accordance with law and the award was meager, sought for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court after issue of notice to the concerned, has enquired into the matter.3. The owner/claimant has examined him...
Mallikarjuna S/O. Mareppa Vs. Mareppa S/O. Hanamantha Madar,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR5357; 2008(2)KarLJ227; 2008(1)KCCR546; 2008(1)AIRKarR216; AIR2008NOC480; 2008(2)CivilLJ818; 2008(1)ICC803; 2008AIHC1250(Kar); 2008(1)KCCR546
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The plaintiff before the trial Court is the appellant herein and the suit filed by him for declaration and possession come to be allowed by the trial Court in O.S.No. 57/99 and the defendants preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court before the lower Appellate Court in R.A.No. 18/2002 and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants 2 and 3 and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Against the said decision of the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The facts in brief are to the effect that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in question praying for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void and also for possession of the suit schedule property which is land bearing Survey No. 600 measuring 12 aces and 23 guntas of lan...
Continental Builders and Developers Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: (2008)14VST175(Karn)
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful assessee questioning the correctness of the orders dated July 15, 2005 in S.T.A. No. 2601 of 2004 and March 16, 2006 in S.T.A. (Rev) No. 40 of 2005 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called as, 'the Tribunal' in short) confirming the assessment order passed against the assessee for the assessment year 1999-2000, urging various legal grounds in support of the following three substantial questions of law framed at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 in the revision petition:13. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal in S.T.A. No. 2601 of 2004 despite knowing that a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal had, in its judgment dated September 11, 2003, recorded a contrary finding in respect of the appeal filed by the very same petitioner for earlier assessment period ?14. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justifi...
V. Siddamma Vs. Bidari Sadyojathappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR464; 2007(4)KCCR2586
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellant herein was the petitioner before the trial court in miscellaneous case No. 154/1984 and the petition filed under Section 144 of CPC by her for restoration of suit schedule properties and also for compensation or damages for illegal occupation by the respondents before the trial court was allowed in part and against the said order passed by the trial court, the respondents preferred R.F.A. No. 586/87 before this court and subsequent to transfer of the appeal to the District Court and being further transferred to the lower appellate court it was numbered as R.A. No. 76/2000 and the lower appellate court, after considering the contention urged before it by the respondents, came to the conclusion that the trial court could not have entertained the petition filed under Section 144 of the CPC as the necessary ingredients were not fulfilled and consequent to the said finding, the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed and the order passed by the tri...
Abbaiah Vs. Byrappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ148; 2007(4)KCCR2607
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 456 of 1981 is the appellant herein and he is aggrieved by the lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed in his favour by the Trial Court and dismissing the suit by allowing the appeal preferred by defendant 6. Hence, the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court in R.A. No. 30 of 1988 is called in question in this second appeal by him.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties, which are dry lands, are the that service inam lands and were attached to the that office of the village Thirumalashettyhalli of Hosakote Taluk and the plaintiff purchased the said suit schedule properties under registered sale deed dated 16-3-1967 and since then, he has been in possession of the same. The defendants are among the persons who filed application for regrant of the lands in question and the grant was made in favour of the original grantees i.e., defendants 1 to 5, and it is the case of the plaintif...
Radio House and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas236(Kar); 2008(2)KarLJ695
ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The subject-matter of this petition is the corporation of the retail sector by bringing Foreign Direct Investment ('FDI' for short). The cause of the retail traders is espoused in this petition. The petitioners' grievance is that if the foreign companies are permitted to enter into the field of retail trade, the business of retail traders in India would be affected adversely; it results in the deprivation of their solitary source of livelihood.2. The second respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Metro AG, a German Multinational Company, the World's fourth largest retailer. It has established two 'State of the Art' Cash and Carry stores in Bangalore at Yeshwanthpur and on Kanakapura Road. The first respondent accorded the approval to the second respondent, to carry on Cash and Carry wholesale business in India, subject to certain terms and conditions. The material condition at Sl. No. 6 in the approval order, dated 5th December, 2000 (Annexure-B to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »