Karnataka Court June 2007 Judgments
Raju Rudraiah Matapathi Vs. Secretary to Government, Department of Rur ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ187; 2007(3)KCCR2080; 2007(5)AIRKarR101
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27-10-2006 passed by the 1st respondent. The impugned order is produced at Annexure-F. As per the impugned order, the petitioner is removed from the membership of the Grama Panchayat, Vajramatti in Mudhol Taluk of Bagalkot District with immediate effect.2. On certain allegations made against the petitioner stating that he had received a sum of Rs. 11,577/- in his name from the Grama Panchayat towards certain developmental work in the village executed through a contractor, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 43-A of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The said proceedings were initiated on a report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat informing the incident involving the petitioner and requesting the Government to take appropriate action in the matter. A show-cause notice dated 29-7-2006 came to be issued vide Annexure-A. The petitioner sub...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mariswamy, I.P.S. (Retd.) S/O S. Siddaiah and Rama Subba, Deputy Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3040; 2007(6)KarLJ417; 2007(3)KCCR1751; 2007(5)AIRKarR37; 2007CriLJNOC839.
ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of process by the learned trial Judge following a private complaint lodged by the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the cognizance taken by the trial Court, the petitioners are before this Court in these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Brief facts are to the defect that, the respondent herein filed a private complaint in PCR.No. 886/2006 before the 5th Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and the allegations made in the said complaint are to the effect that the petitioners herein have caused untoward hardship and harassment to the complainant and several false cases were registered against the complainant and all those cases ended in acquittal. It is also aliened in the complaint that the Police department in general has not performed its duties properly and the complainant was brought to the Police Station and was abused in front of several persons and was even sent to jail....
Tag this Judgment!Mphasis Limited Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas558(Kar); ILR2007KAR3375
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this Petition under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning of the scheme of amalgamation.2. The petitioner company is incorporated under the provision of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The Registered Office of the petitioner company is situate at Bangalore at No. 139/1, Hosur Main Road, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 095, Karnataka. The main object of the petitioner company as set in the Memorandum of Association is to manufacture either for its own use or for sale in India or for export outside India computer systems, computer peripherals and accessories, computer consumables like floppy disks/diskettes, hard disks, ribbons, etc., as set out in the Memorandum of Association. Annexure-B is the copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the petitioner company. The authorized share capital of the company as on 18-8-2006 is 20 crores equity shares of Rs. 10/- each amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadevi Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3037; 2007(5)KarLJ515; 2007(4)KCCR2270; 2007(5)AIRKarR24
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the notice dated 11.06.2007 issued by the Tahsildar and the Prescribed Officer for conducting the election to the post of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayal, Jewargi. fixing the date of election of the Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat on 19.06.2007 at 12 noon.2. Petitioner claims to be the Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat. The challenge to the impugned notice is mainly on the ground that only two months are left for the completion of the term of the Adhyaksha and therefore no useful purpose would be served by holding fresh election for such a short duration incurring substantial expenditure. He has further contended that as per Section 53 of the Karnalaka Panchayatraj Act, 1993, seven days clear notice of the meeting to elect the Adhyaksha has not been given to the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that the notice was served only on 15.06.2007 which would fall short of the requisite seven days notice as prescribed under the statute.3...
Tag this Judgment!McDonald's Corporation repr. by Its Attorney Ms. Shiela M. Lehr and Mc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3346; 2007(5)KarLJ638; LC2007(3)153; 2008(37)PTC247(Karn)
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 11413/1998 questioning the correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 15-10-2004 passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and prayed to set aside the same by allowing this appeal and to decree the suit.2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the rank of the parties are referred to as per their rank assigned in the trial Court.3. For the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions and to find-out whether the judgment and decree under appeal warrant interference, the brief facts of the case are set-out as under:4. i) The first plaintiff is a multi-national corporation of USA and the second plaintiff is its Indian subsidiary. The first plaintiff established its business all over US and many countries in the world. The first plaintiff adopted the trademark 'BIG MAC' in 1968 in USA, registered and is being used in several countries in the world. The particulars of forei...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mariamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2603; ILR2008KAR3203; 2008(4)KCCRSN325(DB)
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One Jose @ T.J. Chacko, the deceased workman was employed as a Cleaner in the lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent. On 13.12.2002 at 7.50 pm, the deceased was travelling in the lorry of the 2nd respondent as a Cleaner to enable the inmates to take food the deceased got down. He was standing on the extreme side of the road in front of highway Petrol Bunk on NH 17. The bus bearing registration No. KL-14/B/5277 came in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased and caused his death. The lorry of the 2nd respondent is insured with the appellant. The existence of Insurance Policy is not in dispute. The fact that the deceased was employed as a Cleaner at the time of accident is also not in dispute.2. It is the contention of the Insurer (appellant) that at the time of accident the lorry was not in movement. The deceased was not an inmate of the lorry and he had got down for the purpose of taking his meals. While standing, the deceased was hit by the offending ...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Mohamed Niaz Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4; 2008(4)KarLJ403; ILR2008(1)Kar4; 2008(4)KLJ403; 2008(1)KCCRSN9(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellant filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent-University to refer the answer scripts of the petitioner bearing Register No. 00 M 3847 in Paper-1 and Paper-2 of the subjects Surgery and Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Phase-Ill, Part-II, M.B.B.S. (R.S.) February 2007 examination to a third examiner for valuation and to declare the result afresh. In support of the prayer, the petitioner, contended that the notifications dated 31.08.1999 and 25.01.2000 published by the respondent-University provided that all answer scripts wherein the difference in marks awarded by the first and the second valuers was 20 per cent or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, shall be referred to a third valuer appointed by the Vice-Chancellor and the result would be declared by taking the average marks of any two valuers close to each other, as the final marks. However, there was no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner had applied...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: (2007)9VST35(Karn); 2007(5)AIRKarR358
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner, who is a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003, (for short 'the Act') is a manufacturer of Sugar and incidentally produces molasses which is a bye-product from which it is claimed by the writ petitioner that denatured spirit is manufactured and in the sale of which the petitioner has found many stumbling blocks, the latest according to the writ petitioner being levy of tax at 20% under the Act, as amended by the Amendment Act No. 6/2007, with which the petitioner is aggrieved.2. It is the apprehension of the writ petitioner that the provisions of this Act was brought into force in terms of the notification dated 30.3.2007 published by the 2nd respondent will be an act adverse and in feet detrimental to the industrial and business activity of the petitioner and having regard to the background leading to this legislation, petitioner has approached this Court questioning the constitutional validity of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Hunase Chowdappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ576; 2007(3)KCCRSN210; 2007(5)AIRKarR348
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition in the second round is a fight between two brothers both of whom had sought for conferment of occupancy rights to an extent of 2 acres 4 guntas in Sy. No. 180 of Suntikoppa Village, Talaguppa Hobli, Sagar Taluk.2. While in the first round, the Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights exclusively in favour of the present writ petitioner, respondent 3-his brother had filed a writ petition before this Court questioning that order and the matter was remanded by setting aside the order of the Tribunal, in the present round, the Tribunal in terms of its order dated 17-7-2003 has conferred occupancy rights jointly in favour of the petitioner and respondent 3. Respondent 4-owner has been a more a silent spectator all along.3. It is questioning such order, the present writ petition by one of the brothers contending that in fact in the earlier partition effected in the family, this particular piece of land had fallen to the share of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B.T. Manjunath S/O B.M. Thippanna Vs. the State of Karnataka, Depa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2940; 2007(6)KarLJ276; 2007(4)KCCR2323; 2007(5)AIRKarR22
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In the instant case the petitioner has sought to declare that the post or Deputy Director in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs can be filled up only by way of promotion as per the existing Cadre and Recruitment Rules and further assailing the correctness of the impugned notification dated 7.6.2007 as per Annexures A and B respectively, presented the instant writ petition.2. The grievance made out by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, assailing the correctness of the impugned notification deputing respondent No. 2 from the department of Co-operation to the place of the petitioner i.e. to the Department of Food and Civil Supplies since as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules it does not permit for filling up the said post by way of deputation, has filed the writ petition. The further case of the petitioner is that the Government also cannot invoke the provisions of the KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 as the post he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »