Skip to content

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.

Oct 09 2007

Ronald Jerome D'Souza Vs. State of Karnataka represented by the Secret ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-09-2007

Reported in: ILR2007KAR5286; 2008(2)KarLJ271; 2008(1)AIRKarR157; AIR2008NOC406

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order/notice (as claimed by petitioner) dated 28th September 2007 bearing No. UBC/4/77/ (dis-qualification)/ 2007-08 passed/issued by second respondent herein, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The only grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is one of the elected Directors of the Managing Committee of the Akshaya Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Karwar, Uttara Kannada District ('Society' for short). When petitioner was so discharging his duties as elected Director of the said Society, to the shock and surprise of petitioner, the impugned order cum notice dated 28th September 2007 vide Annexure A came to be issued without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to meet the allegations made against the petitioner. Therefore, it is the case of petitioner that, the second respondent has proceed...


Oct 09 2007

Manipal Academy of Higher Education Rep. by Its Registrar, Sudhakar Na ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-09-2007

Reported in: ILR2008KAR257; (2008)13VST377(Karn); 2008(1)KCCR451; 2008(2)AIRKarR8; 2008LabIC1763

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These matters are listed before this Court pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court on 14.7,2006 in Civil Appeal No. 4476/00 and connected matters. The operative portion of the said order reads as under;-Since relevant data do not appear to have been placed before the High Courts, we permit the parties to place them in the concerned writ petitions within two months, The concerned High Courts shall deal with the basic issue as to whether the impugned levy was compensatory in nature. The High Courts are requested to decide the aforesaid issue within five months from the date of receipt of our order. The Judgment in the respective cases shall be placed on record by the concerned parties within a months from the date of the decision in each case pursuant to our direction.2. Ms. Vani, learned Counsel for the appellant filed a memo requesting this Court to treat the applications I.A.II/06, for production of additional documents, as having been filed in this app...


Oct 09 2007

Sri. N. Hanumantharaya S/O Narayanappa Vs. Smt. Mariyamma W/O Late Mun ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-09-2007

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ678; 2008(3)KCCR1465; 2008(1)AIRKarR446; AIR2008NOC769; 2008AIHC1397

Subhash B. Adi, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.8.2003 passed in O.S.No. 4624/1992.2. The suit is one for specific performance of the agreement dated 23.12.1989 by directing defendants 1 to 4 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed dated 28.5.1992 executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendants No. 5 to 8.3. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 to 4 are the owners of land measuring 23 guntas in Sy.No. 10/6 of Lottegollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. They entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff to sell an area measuring 95 feet east-west and 63 feet north-south as described in the schedule, for consideration of Rs. 63,500/- on 23.12.1989. The plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration through two cheques bearing Nos. 227941 and 227942 for Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 13,500/- respectively. There was no balance of sale co...


Oct 08 2007

Methodist Church Represented by Its District Superintendent, Rev. Alex ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-08-2007

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ537

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Though this matter is posted in orders list, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final healing, reserved, and is disposed of as follows.2. Petitioner in this is a Methodist Church, Belgaum represented by its District Superintendent. Petitioner assailing the legally and legality and validity of the impugned order dated 8th November 2006. In proceedings No. KAMSA/VATAN/VIVA/60/2006-07 on the file of the first respondent- Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum District, Belgaum vide Annexure K, has presented the instant with petition.3. The grievance of petitioner herein - Methodist Church ('Church' for short) is that, it is a religious institution called as Methodist Church which has been in existence for the past 150 years. In 1850, the said Church was called as 'Methodist London Mission Church' functioning for Christian religious activities. The said London Mission Church has handed over the missionary work at Belgaum to...


Oct 08 2007

Workmen of B.S. Refrigerators Ltd. Vs. Prl. Labour Secretary, Departme ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-08-2007

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR334]; ILR2007KAR4777; 2008(1)KarLJ71

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this petition, petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash annexures C and G dated 3.7.2004 and 19.8.2004 passed by the 1st respondent and to direct the 1st respondent to refer the issue of permission of closure with effect from 10.8.2004 to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore as per Section 25O(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent management has filed an application on 30.4.2004 as per Section 25O(1) of the Act before the 1st respondent seeking permission to close their unit with effect from 10.8.2004 a per annexure A in respect of which the petitioner Union filed statement of objections along with several documents. In the course of enquiry, some more materials were also produced. After hearing, while granting permission to the Management to close the unit manufacturing refrigerators, an order was passed on 3.7.2004 by the 1st respondent as at annexure C against which the petitioner f...


Oct 08 2007

The Managing Director, Nwkrtc Central Offices Vs. Smt. B. Manjula and ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-08-2007

Reported in: ILR2008KAR433; 2008(2)KarLJ313; 2008(2)AIRKarR451; 2008(3)CivilLJ421; 2008AIHC2016(Kar)

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, for short KSRTC has preferred this appeal calling in question the judgment and award dt. 2.9.2005 in MVC No. 348/93 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & MACT, Tumkur, for short the 'MACT'.2. The respondents 1 to 3 claiming to be the widow and children of one G. Muniraju, who succumbed to the grievous injuries in an accident that occurred on 16.10.1992 at 11.30 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. KA 31F 74, instituted a claim petition invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, for short Act, for Rs. 4,50,000/-, as compensation. The KSRTC, arranged as respondent No. 1 in the petition opposed the claim by filing statement of objections, interalia denying the accident and injuries to the deceased. In addition, it contended that the claimants were not the legal representatives of the deceased Muniraju. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT f...


Oct 05 2007

Om Shakthi Sc/St and Minority Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Rep. by ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-05-2007

Reported in: IV(2008)BC657; 2008CriLJ998; 2008(2)KarLJ486

R.B. Naik, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant - appellant challenging the order of acquittal passed by the XXII Addl. CMM, Bangalore and XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City dated 6.4.2005 in CC No. 36103/2002 acquitting the respondent - accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.2. It is the case of the appellant - complainant that it is a Co-operative society and it had disbursed a loan of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent accused on 5.2.2001. The respondent accused failed to discharge the loan and pay the installments due as and when they fell due. After due persuasion, the respondent - accused issued a cheque Ex.P-2 in favour of the complainant Co-operative society for a sum of RS. 25,000/- dated 12.2.2002 towards the discharge of liability. The cheque so issued was presented by the complainant - Co-operative Society through its banker KSC Apex Bank Ltd., Magadi road, Bangalore on 18.6.2002. Ex.P-3 is the endorsement issued by the ...


Oct 05 2007

Shamadhan Trading (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Parli ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-05-2007

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ509; ILR2007(4)Kar5014; 2007(4)KCCR2628

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. As the common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are taken up together for hearing and are decided by this order.2. The petitioners herein are the States of Meghalaya, Sikkim, Arunachala Pradesh, Nagaland and promoters of the lotteries. The petitioners are organising, promoting and conducting lottery under Entry 40 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and under the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act').3. The petitioners are challenging the validity and vires of the Karnataka Tax on Lotteries Act, 2004 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'State Act') promulgated by the respondent-State which imposes tax on lotteries, of the petitioners-States. According to the petitioners, the legislation has been passed without any jurisdiction or legislative competence in respect of taxes and thus deserves to be set aside as such.4. It is con...


Oct 05 2007

Smt. Vasanthi D/O B.U. Shetty and W/O P. Karunakar Alva Vs. Smt. Jayas ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-05-2007

Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ537; 2008(1)KCCRSN50; 2008(2)AIRKarR33; 2008AIHC1622(Kar)

Subhash B. Adi, J.1. R.F.A. No. 1209/2007 is by the defendants in O.S. No. 464/1995 against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2007 R.F.A. No. 1208/2007 is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 138/1995 against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2007.2. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking in O.S. No. 4646/1995.3. Defendant No. 1 in the said suit is the plaintiff in the other suit and the plaintiff in this suit is the defendant in the other suit. In both the suits, except the defendant No. 2, plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are the common and the subject matter is also same the trial court considering both the suits has passed a common judgment.4. O.S. No. 4646/1995 is fox declaration, declaring that the lease agreement dated 1.2.1995 in respect of ABCD portion marked in the rough sketch produced along with the plaint executed by second defendant in favour of first defendant by virtue of the purported General Power of Attorney dated 17.7.1985 executed by the plaintiff as null and void...


Oct 05 2007

M. Guruswamy Vs. the Managing Director, Karnataka Power Transmission C ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Oct-05-2007

Reported in: ILR2008KAR214; 2008(2)KarLJ499; 2008(1)AIRKarR221; 2008LabIC(NOC)232(Kar)

ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner is the employee under the respondents. Alleging certain acts of negligence and misconduct, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 25.9.2000, vide Annexure-A. The charge sheet contains the articles of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct, the list of documents and the list of witnesses proposed to be examined, through whom the charges were sought to be proved. A retired District Judge was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and two others, being a joint enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry, has submitted the report vide Annexure-C. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice enclosing the enquiry report, as to why action in accordance with law based on the enquiry report, should not be taken. Subsequently, an order has came to be passed by disciplinary authority ('DA' for short) on 27.9.2001, vide Annexure-D, holding that, the miscon...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial