Karnataka Court December 2007 Judgments
Sri D.K. Nanjundaiah S/O Late Kalasaiah Vs. the Chief Army Quality Ass ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR735; 2008(4)KarLJ33; 2008(1)KCCR502; 2008(1)KCCRSN4; 2008(2)AIRKarR61; 2008(2)AIRKar390; 2008LabIC(NOC)688(Kar)(DB)
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.The applicant in OA No. 359/04 aggrieved by the Older dated 28.7.2004 of the Central Administration Tribunal Bangalore, has preferred this writ petition.The factual panorama in a nutshell is:1. The petitioner, a Hindu took In marriage one Kempadevamma on 20.12.1993 which it is claimed was dissolved by a decision of the Panchayat consisting of elders of the community, and on the written consent of the wife, by agreement dated 6.7.1995 the petitioner took a second wife by name R.D. Vijayalakshmi on 24.12.1995. The petitioner obtained a decree of divorce annulling the first marriage by Judgment and decree dt 12.1.2001 in M.C. No. 31/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tiptur.2. The petitioner applied for and secured an appointment as a Civilian motor driver Grade-II w.e.f. 1.12.1996 by order dated 25.1.1996 of the Commodore Indian Navy, Chief Qualify Assurance Officer, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. On reporting to duty, the petitioner submitted an attestati...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Bhat S/O Vasantha Bhat and Kum. Gayathri Prabhu D/O Lakshmana ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1327; 2008(4)KarLJ127
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mangalore, D.K. in S.C. No. 105/98 order dated 31.1.01.2. The case of the prosecution is that, one M. Vittaldas Shenoy who is a resident of Vyshali apartments situate near Mangala Stadium, Gandhinagar, Mangalore, has a son by name Upendra Shenoy; the said child was going to Mangala Baby Sitting situated at Gandhinagar and he was being taken to school everyday in an autorickshaw; the first accused mother one Nirupama Bhat was working with the complainant and the first accused used to come there to drop her to the complainant's house in a motor cycle and he had acquaintance with the 2nd accused and both of them were moving together, the first accused was running transport business having (sic) and when he had sustained loss in the said business, both accused Nos. 1 and 2 thought of kidnapping the child of the complainant for ransom and that on 13.1.98 around 11.45 am. th...
Tag this Judgment!B.L. Palanetra @ Viraktharadhya and V.A. Shakuntala W/O B.V. Virakthar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR816; 2008(3)KarLJ711; 2008(1)KCCR267; 2008(2)AIRKarR404; AIR2008NOC1243; 2008(3)CivilLJ895; 2008AIHC2007(Kar)
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. By order dated 10/12/1999 LRRP. No. 6116/1988 was allowed, orders passed by the Land Tribunal and appellate authority were set aside and the Tribunal was directed to register first respondent herein as tenant of Sy. No. 9 of Bommanahalli village, Bhadravathi Taluk. This review petition is filed to review the said order.2. The review petition is filed after a lapse of 2782 days. I.A.I/2007 is filed to condone the said delay.3. The petitioners were not parties to the earlier proceedings. Hence, I.A.II/2007 is filed seeking permission to prosecute this review petition.4. So far as the inordinate delay of more than seven and half years is concerned, the only explanation offered is that petitioners came to know of the order only in September 2006. Except this, there is no other explanation. The explanation furnished is not convincing and acceptable. Hence, I.A.I/2007 is liable to be rejected.5. So far as permission sought to prosecute the review petition is concer...
Tag this Judgment!Mohandasan S/O Keshavan Nair Vs. the Inspector General of Police (Sout ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR844; 2008(4)KarLJ378; 2008(1)KCCR510; 2008(2)AIRKarR398; 2008LabIC2065Kar
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions are assailing the correctness of the impugned transfer order dated 25.9.2007 bearing No T.IX-1:2007-SI(A) issued by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-B and also the office order dated 24.9.2007 bearing No. T.IX-1:207:Estt. II and Signal No. T.IX-1:207-ESTT. II dated 24.9.2007 of the 2nd respondent is illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and to set aside the order dated 25.9.2007 passed by 2nd respondent and also the order dated 13.12.2007 bearing No. T.IX-8:07:Adm. II issued by 6th respondent. Further, petitioners have sought for a direction directing the respondents to continue them at Group Center, Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity.2. It is not in dispute that, earlier these petitioners have filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 15494/2007 and connected matters, challenging the transfer order Annexure-B and seeking consequential relief. Those matters had come up for consideration before this Court on 28t...
Tag this Judgment!G. Venkatesh S/O Late Gangahanumaiah, Vs. Sri C. Gangaiah S/O Late Sri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR979; 2008(3)KarLJ567; 2008(1)KCCR477; 2008(2)AIRKarR485; 2008(3)ICC435; 2008AIHC2018(Kar)(DB)
ORDER1. This review petition under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the appellant - petitioners for review of the judgment passed by us in RPA Nos.539/96 and 540/96 on 17.03.2006 whereby the common judgment and decrees passed in the Original Suits No. 45/1988 and 409/1988 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore were set aside and modified by us for the reasons assigned in the judgment and a direction was issued by framing of a scheme and settling the dispute between the parties.2. The circumstances in which this review petition is filed are:The review petitioners - appellants had questioned the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S. No. 45/1988 dated 26.07.1996. By the said judgment, the Trial Court had declined to declare the temple namely 'Shanimahatma Temple' as private temple and declared it as a public temple. The appellants claimed that their late father Gangahanumaiah while working on his lan...
Tag this Judgment!The Department of Posts by Its Senior Superintendent of Post Office, M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant62; ILR2008KAR948; 2008(3)KarLJ444; ILR2008(1)Kar948; 2008(3)KLJ444; 2008(1)KCCR444; 2008(2)AIRKarR215; AIR2008Kant62; 2008AIHC1988(Kar)(DB).
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioners, arraigned as respondents in Complaint No. 109/2005 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore, (for short 'District Forum') instituted by the respondent herein, suffered an order dated 28-12-2005 Annexure-'C' holding the petitioners liable to damages of Rs. 20,000/- on account of deficiency of service, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'Act'). The complainant-respondent herein, too, suffered an order of rejection of the claim for Rs. 2,03,000/-. The petitioners and the respondent filed separate Appeals bearing Nos. 487/2006 and 188/2006, respectively, before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short 'State Commission') whence, by older dated 9-4-2007 Annexure-'D', Appeal No. 188/2006 of the respondent was allowed and Appeal No. 487/2006 of the petitioners was rejected. Hence this Writ petition.2. The respondent-complaint, in her complaint to the District F...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Chandrashekar and ors. Vs. the Tuheed Co-operative Housing Society ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4003; 2008(6)AIRKarR319; AIR2009NOC264
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 6th January, 1995 passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Hubli in OS No. 55 of 1993.2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It entered into an agreement of sale with the appellants on 7th March, 1986 in respect of the lands measuring 22 acres out of 27 acres 5 guntas (18 acres 18 guntas at R.S. No. 7, 4 acres 37 guntas at R.S. No. 5A/3B/1, and 3 acres 30 guntas in R.S. No. 5A/3B/2 of Bammapura Village, Hubli Taluk). These lands, constituting the subject matter of the same, are hereinafter called as 'suit property'. The sale consideration agreed upon was Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) per acre.3. The said agreement stipulated that the first respondent Society should obtain necessary clearance and approvals from the State Government at its cost. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Roopali Vijaykumar Padhye W/O Vijayakumar Damodar Padhye Vs. Gove ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4779; 2009(5)KarLJ695
ORDER1. Smt. Roopali Vijaykumar Padhye, the petitioner herein, has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Iegality of detention of her husband, Vijaykumar Padhye, vide order No. HD 7 SCF 2007 dated 5.7.2007 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Karnataka, assailing it on several grounds, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of habeaus corpus.2. We have heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. B.V. Kumar, and Mr. Javali appearing for the petitioner. After hearing for some time, considering the serious nature of questions raised, we had requested the learned Advocate General to represent the State rather than the learned Government Advocate. We have heard both sides in supplementation to the material on record.3. The following factual matrix as manifest from the case papers needs reference:a) M/s Uplus Batteries Private Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and has its business place at No. 164/2, Huskur Gate,...
Tag this Judgment!Yashodamma W/O Late Shivalingegowda Vs. the State of Karnataka by Stat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR495; 2008(3)KarLJ117; 2008(1)KCCRSN45; 2008(2)AIRKarR299(DB)
ORDER1. The question of law that is required to he considered in these petitions is as to whether the remand of an accused under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes to an end as soon as a charge sheet is filed and if there is delay in the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence, whether the intervening period from the time the charge sheet is placed until the cognizance is taken amounts to illegal detention.2. These four petitions have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of bail. During arguments in Criminal Petition No. 27/2005 one of the contentions raised was that as held by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice Smt. Manjula Chellur) in Devindrappa and Anr. v. State of Karnataka 2004 CRI. L.J. 1506 once the charge sheet is filed, period of remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes to an end and in the absence of specific order of remand under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. K. Rajani W/O Late P.C. Krishna Vs. Vijaya Bank, a Body Constitut ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR857]; 2008(4)KarLJ165; 2008(1)KCCR84; 2008(2)AIRKarR56; 2008LabIC(NOC)421(Kar)
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, questioning the impugned order dated 3rd April 2003 bearing No. PER. HRD. RCT;1785/2003 passed by respondent-Vijaya Bank vide Annexure L, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner as 'Clerk' on compassionate grounds and grant all consequential benefits.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, petitioner herein had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 4121/2002 and the said matter had come up for consideration before this Court on 22nd October 2002 and the same was disposed of with three directions to the respondent-Bank. Copy of the order passed in the said writ petition is herewith produced and marked as Annexure J to this writ petition. The said three directions were, i) While considering the application of the petitioner, the respondent Bank shall consider the relevant scheme which was applicable to the petitioner's case on the date of filing ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »