Karnataka Court November 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.
Raghottamachar Galagali S/O Anandateerthacharya Galagali and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1538; 2008(5)KarLJ605; 2008(2)AIRKarR84; 2008(2)AICLR832
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused for quashing and set aside the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent in Crime No. 81/2002 and charge sheet filed in CC. No. 5353/2004 on the file of the II Additional C.M.M. Bangalore City, Bangalore.2. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of C r. P. C. against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.3. The marriage of the 5th petitioner with 2nd respondent was solemnized, on 28/10/2002. The 5th petitioner was an Engineer at MICQ, Bangalore and had served more than 8 years. Thereafter, he tendered Ms resignation to his job and left India as he got appointment at Australia, on 24/01/2003. Since than he was residing there itself.4. The further case of the petitioners is that after the marriage of 5 petitioner with the 2nd respondent, they lived separately at Jayanagar in Bangalore. The 5th pet...
B. Usha W/O Vishwanath S.V. and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ565; 2008(1)KCCRSN81; 2008(1)AIRKarR490; 2008LabIC(NOC)340(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.Re: WP No. 42718 of 2004:1. Writ petition by as many as nine persons, some of whom were working as non-teaching staff at the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Residential School, Ragigudda, Shimoga as well as in the girls hostel attached to this school run by the fifth respondent - Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Mission Public Trust (Regd), Ragigudda, Shimoga with the first petitioner was working as assistant teacher in the very school, all of whom are claiming that the orders pasted by the first respondent - State of Karnataka - and its officers in the department of public instructions viz., second respondent - Commissioner of Public Instructions; third respondent - Director (High School), Department of Public Instructions; and fourth respondent - Deputy Director of Public Instructions, on 1-1-2003 [Annexure-Q to the writ petition] and 22-9-2003 [Annexure-T to the writ petition], have the effect of throwing them out of their employment and therefore have sought for quashing of these t...
Marikalamma D/O. Late Ramaiah Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ568; 2008(1)AIRKarR435
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 5th June 2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Mysore in M.A. No. 86/2003 dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner at Annexure D, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the first respondent to consider the case of petitioner for grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act.2. The case made out by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, one Sri. Deveeraiah was cultivating the schedule land bearing Sy.Nos.94 measuring 28 guntas; 125 measuring 06 acres 18 guntas; 126 measuring 01 acre; 133 measuring 05 acres 38 guntas, in all measuring about 14 acres 04 guntas situate at Mallahalli Village, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District as 'chakra inam lands'. After the death of the said Sri. Deveeraiah, his sons namely Sri. Kariaiah and Sri. Ramaiah have succeeded the said properties and before co...
Namtech Consultants Private Limited Through Its Authorised Signatory, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1187
1. This Company Appeal is filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act 1956 (herein after referred to as 'The Act') by the appellant Nos. 1 and 2. aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2006 passed by the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai (herein after referred to as 'CLB') in C.P. No. 11/06 praying this court to set aside the direction in the said order that the appellants shall sell their shareholding in the first respondent company (herein referred to as JV Co.,) to second respondent company namely General Electric Pacific (Mauritius) Limited to direct the second respondent and its nominees to sell their shareholdings in JV Co. to the appellants at the value to be determined by M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers, Chartered Accountants.2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:(a) Appellant No. 1 namely Namtech Consultants Private Limited is a company incorporated under the Act. Appellant No. 2 namely K.P.P. Nambiar being a nominee of ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented by Its Regional Manager Vs. Sm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1197; AIR2008Kant106; ILR2008KAR1249; 2008(6)KarLJ97; ILR2008(1)Kar1249; 2008(6)KLJ97; 2008(2)KCCR675; 2008(3)AIRKarR44; AIR2008Kar106; 2008ACJ1197; 2008AIHC2291(Kar)(DB)
1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the Judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore SCCH-7 in MVC No. 2943/2005 dated 18/05/2006 wherein the application filed by the respondents under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been allowed in port and compensation of Rs. 3,81,000/- has been awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment.2. We have beard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the structure formula and the schedule read with the provisions of Sections 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act However, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the application filed by the respondents seeking compensation towards the death of the driver ...
Laxmansa S/O Somanathasa Raibagi and Geedappa S/O Sannafakirappa Gotur ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant90; ILR2008KAR2572; 2008(3)KarLJ706; 2008(2)KCCR679; 2008(2)AIRKarR387; 2008AIHC2005(Kar); AIR2008Kar90; 2008(4)CivilLJ652
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff's questioning the divergent findings recorded lay the court below. To appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal, few facts are necessary to be stated.2. Plaintiff No. 1 is the owner No. 6163 shown as BCEF in the hand sketch. Plaintiff No. 2 and his brothers are the joint owners of property bearing CTS No. 6126/ABC shown as AGHM. The defendant is the owner of house bearing CTS No. 6124 and 6125 shown as ABCD in the hand sketch. At the place shown as BKNF there are residential houses. There a primary school known as DET8 within the vicinity of the premises in question. According to the plaintiffs the entire area is residential. The plaintiff's houses are ancient and built, with mud bricks. The defendant's house m also constructed of mud bricks long back. They are also not in a proper condition in as much as they are in dilapidated condition. The AB and BC walls are common walls constructed by mud bricks. Plaintiff No. 1 along ...
Rajashekar H.S. Vs. State Bank of Mysore Rep. by Its General Manager a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)ILLJ948Kant
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, questing the correctness of the impugned communication issued by the second respondent dated August 24, 2005 vide Annexure-K and further seeking a direction directing the respondents to regularise his service in the post of sub-staff in the respondent-Bank with effect from 1996-97 par with the other candidates vide Annexure-H with back wages and consequential benefits in the interest of justice and equity, has presented this writ petition.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that earlier, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 45932/1999 seeking direction directing the respondents to consider his request for absorption to give appointment as per the recommendation of the State Bank of Mysore Employees Union as per Annexure-F produced in the said writ petition and direct the respondent to give the appointment to the petitioner equivalent to the job given to one S. Devaraj. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on December 14, 2004 directi...
Sri Vinayaka Residents Welfare Association Vs. M. Ramachandra and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR5282; 2008(5)KarLJ190; 2008(1)KCCR30; 2008(1)AIRKarR410; 2008(2)CivilLJ922; 2008AIHC1390(Kar)
ORDER 1 RULE 5 - Relief claimed in the suit against every defendant - Interest of every defendant - HELD, The suit is tenable even when one defendant in the suit is not interested in all the reliefs claimed in the suit.Revision petition is dismissed....
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Construction ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]297ITR70(KAR); [2008]297ITR70(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated March 28, 2002, whereunder, the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer.2. The question of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal is whether the interest accrued on the deposit made by the assessee to avail of the bank guarantee has to be treated as income from the business or from other sources.3. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. It is not in dispute that the assessee being a contractor in order to secure a contract work was required to offer a bank guarantee to the KPTCL. It is not in dispute that in order to avail of the bank guarantee, certain amounts, were invested in fixed deposits, which had accrued interest. The assessee has shown the interest accrued on the fixed deposits as business interest. But the Assessing Officer treated the interest, considering the same as income from other sources and called upon th...
Smt. Padma W/O Late Velu and Master Munigonda S/O Late Velu Minor Rep. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ583; 2008(2)KCCR804; 2008(1)AIRKarR309; AIR2008NOC309; 2008AIHC1275(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the order dated 31.8.2006 passed in Misc. No. 200 of 2004 on the file of the XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, where under the learned Judge of the city civil court has rejected the Misc. No. 200 of 2004 which had been filed under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the earlier dismissal of the suit on 26.5.2003 in OS No. 2413 of 2001 wherein the petitioners figured as plaintiffs for non-prosecution and particularly by rejecting the application that had been filed in Misc. No. 200 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in preferring the Miscellaneous Petition, which application had teen dismissed and consequently the Miscellaneous petition also dismissed.2. The dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and the Miscellaneous petition under the impugned order forecloses th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »