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.
Sri Rangappa (Since Dead Reptd. by His L.Rs. Smt. Putta Boramma W/O. L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant47; [2007(114)FLR1109]; 2008(1)KarLJ35
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1993 In O.S. No. 75/1990 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge at Mysore, decreeing the suit for partition.2. Appellant in R.F.A. No. 260/1994 is the 1st defendant and respondents No. 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs and respondents No. 5 to 7, are defendants No. 2 to 4 before the trial court. Appellant in R.F.A. No. 444/1999 is the 3rd plaintiff and the respondents are the plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 4 and defendants before the trial court In this judgment, the parties are referred to their status before the trial court3. Plaintiffs contend that common propositor, Lakkaiah, died leaving behind his wife, three daughters and two sons as his legal representatives to succeed to his estate the schedule properties. Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife, plaintiff No. 2, 4 and defendant No. 2 are the daughters. Plaintiff No. 3 and defendant No. 1 are the sons of deceased Lakkaiah. The 1st defendant refused to partit...
V. Sudarshan S/O Late T.S. Venkobarao and ors. Vs. Bangalore Developme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ217; ILR2008(1)Kar1014; 2008(1)KCCRSN75; 2008(2)AIRKarR466
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are seeking a direction to the Bangalore Development Authority to comply with the orders dated 30th March 2007, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7791/1997 and refund to the petitioners the property taxes collected from them till 24-7-1992, i.e. till the date of amendment effected to the B.D.A. Act, by the B.D.A. (Amendment) Act, 1993, together with Bank rats of interest from the date of receipt of tax amount till the date of repayment.2. Subsequently, in Writ Petition No. 712/2002 the petitioners filed an application for an amendment, to incorporate an additional prayer, to declare that the Bangalore Development Authority and Certain other Law (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Karnataka Act No. 19 of 2002) published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 9th September 2002, as ultra vires the Constitution of India and to strike down the same, the said application is allowed. Therefore, the fate of all these writ petiti...
H. Ramappa S/O Hanumanthappa and ors. Vs. the General Manager, Sri Yel ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR863]; (2008)IILLJ737Kant; 2007(4)KCCRSN301
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, since the area of dispute appeared to be in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal was heard for final disposal.2. The appellants (for short, referred to as 'the employees') were the employees of respondent-1 (for short, referred to as 'the employer'). The respondent-establishment was engaged in the manufacture of cotton and polyester yarn, being one of the units of National Textile Corporation, a Government of India undertaking. The employer had announced Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 1996, in furtherance of which about 250 employees including the appellants exercised the option, which was accepted, and they were relieved from service, by paying terminal benefits.3. The appellants have subsequently filed separate applications for directions, in Form 'N' under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, (for short, re...
Kirloskar Electric Company Limited Vs. Dayananda Bengre Since Deceased ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR294]; ILR2007KAR4599; 2008(2)KarLJ144; 2007(4)KCCRSN300
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this petition, the Management assails the award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore dated 16th May 2003 in A.I.D. No. 335/2001.2. The case of the Management is that the claimant tendered his voluntary retirement to be accepted after 30-11-1995. The Management has accepted his resignation w.e.f. 6-12-1995 and on the very same day, they sent the acceptance letter through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. It is stated by the Management that the communication has reached the claimant on 7-12-1995 itself and an order of acceptance of Voluntary Retirement came to be passed.3. In the meanwhile, according to the claimant, although the resignation was supposed to be accepted on 30-11-1995, he had worked up to 6-12-1995 as no such communication was received by the claimant from the Management. Subsequently, the claimant withdrew the resignation on 6-12-1995 and on the very same day he sent a letter of withdrawal which reached the Management...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its Deputy Manager, United Ind ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ527; AIR2008Kant184; 2008(5)AIRKarR472; AIR2008Kar184
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellant was the second respondent before the MACT, Bangalore in MVC No. 473/98. The respondents 1 to 5 were the claimants before the Tribunal. The claim petition was lodged by the claimants on account of death of one P.R. Tagore who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 19,08.97 between Palamaner and Bangalore on N.H. No. 4 near Pattikonda Village. The deceased was an officer of M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. was the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. KA-04-N-831 which has been insured with the appellant herein. Since the deceased was an officer of M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd., the office had provided the above car for the personal use of the deceased. On the unfortunate day, the deceased was travelling with his wife Smt. P. Vijayalakshmi who is the second respondent in this appeal. They were proceeding from Bangalore towards Palamaner. Near Pattikonda Village, on seeing an oncoming lorry in a rash and negli...
Dr. Subashchandra Kalburgi S/O Sri Mahantappa Kalburgi Vs. Assistant C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ1; 2007(4)KCCR2616(DB);
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath and A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and award of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) at Gulbarga, ('reference Court' for short), dated 28.2.2007, passed in LAC Nos. 468 and 469 of 1994.2. The appellant has paid the Court fee of Rs. 15/- under Article 3 (iii)(1)(a) of Schedule II of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short). The office has raised objection regarding the insufficiency of Court fee paid. According to the office objection, the Court fee has to be paid under Section 48 r/w Article 1 of Schedule I of the Act. The appellant has submitted before the office that, the matter involved in the appeal being limited to the rejection of reference by the Court and the appeal being not for seeking any enhancement of compensation, Section 48 has no application. On the said objection, the matter is listed for hearing.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the refere...
H. Surendra Shenoy S/O. Late H. Sarvothama Shenoy Vs. Syndicate Bank a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-2007
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR781]; 2008(3)KarLJ167
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by an officer-employee of the Syndicate Bank who has been eased out of service under Regulation 19 of the Syndicate Bank (Officer's) Service Regulations, 1979 in terms of the impugned order dated 21.10.2003, copy produced as Annexure-G to the writ petition, who has questioned the legality of this order. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the same on this premise that the petitioner was not given an effective opportunity either to represent against the order or his appeal against the order has been properly considered; that the Management has virtually passed the order behind the back of the petitioner by withholding information from the petitioner; that a committee which has been constituted for the purpose of examining the case of the petitioner for the purpose of Regulation 19 had not been properly constituted; that the committee has gone beyond its brief by taking into account extraneous matters and therefore, the order should be q...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›