Karnataka Court June 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 B.P. Kotregowda S/O Late Siddanagowda Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3184; 2007(4)KCCRSN244; 2007(5)AIRKar227
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Though this matter is posted today for consideration of I.A. No. I of 2007 filed by respondents-2 and 3, the matter is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.2. in the instant case, petitioner is assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 12.6.2006, passed by first respondent vide Annexure-A and order dated 23.6.2006 passed by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-G.3. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, he is working as Depot Manager in the 2nd respondent-Corporation and he has been transferred on 26.10.2005 vide Annexure-B as Depot Manger to Bommanahally. But he could not take the charge of the said Depot due to non co-operation of the officials of the department and on persuasion of the 4th respondent The said order has been given effect to only on 22/23.3.2006 office order issued by District Manager of the 2nd respondent-Corporation and accordingly, petitioner has taken the c...
G. Balasundaram S/O Late G. Nagaraja Setty (Since Deceased by His Lrs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ331; 2007(4)KCCR2499; 2007(6)AIRKarR292
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. The unsuccessful landlord has come up with this revision petition under Section 115 CPC. to set aside the order dated 23.9.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bellary in HRC. Revision No. 15/2005 dismissing the order dated 6.11.2005 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Bellary in HBC. NO. 6/2004.2. The main grounds urged by the revision petitioners are that the Revisional court has totally misinterpreted the law laid down by this Court in the case of Manohar Tuljaram v. Yallabha Ramagopal, reported in : ILR1989KAR968 . There is no contract of agreement entered into between. the parties with regard to adjustment of the arrears of rant payable by the respondent-tenant. So in the absence of such an agreement, the Court cannot say that the amount borrowed toy the landlord can be adjusted towards the rent due by the respondent. The provisions of Section 27(2)(a) of K.R. Act of 1999 reads that:unless the respondent-tenant deposits the rent within the period s...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aishabi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1718; AIR2007Kant155; ILR2008KAR208; 2007(6)KarLJ482
V. Jagannathan, J.1. Whether a person travelling in a goods vehicle without the goods being carried by him can be brought within the expression 'owner of the goods' under Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('1988 Act' for short) and therefore, the insurance company is liable, is the question that calls for an answer in this appeal.2. The facts briefly stated are to the effect that one Mohammed Isaac travelled in the lorry bearing No. KA-20/2911 with fish boxes and the journey started from Sagar and after unloading the fish boxes at Bhadravafhi the vehicle was returning back to Sagar and the said Mohammed Isaac travelled back in the said lorry. On the way near Kone Hosur, on account of the driver of the lorry losing control of the vehicle, the accident occurred and the lorry fell upside down., Mohammed Isaac and other passengers who were in the lorry sustained injuries and. Mohammed Isaac died subsequently. The claim petition filed by the mother of the deceased Mohammed Isaac wa...
Nagaraja Upadhya Vs. M. Sanjeevan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC229; 2007CriLJ3800; ILR2007KAR3368; 2007(5)KarLJ288
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the complainant is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,) Udupi, in Criminal Case No. 3325/1997 dated 10-7-2001, wherein the respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:2. The appellant herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, against the accused alleging that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant in January 1996 on the pretext that he needed the money urgently for the medical treatment of his close relative. The complainant lent the money in cash, on sympathetic grounds since he knew the accused for several years. The accused promised to repay the amount within two months and there was no agreement to pay a...
C. Chenna Basappa Vs. Smt. Lingamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant130; ILR2008KAR650; 2007(5)KarLJ381
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 1-1-2005 in G & WC No. 61/2004 passed by the 6th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, allowing I.A. No. 1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, I.A. No. 2 filed under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, partly allowing I.A. No. 6 filed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, disposing I.A. No. 5 filed under Section 12 of the Guardinas and Wards Act and rejecting I.A. No.3 filed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act.2. One Sri L. Chandrashekar and Smt. Premakumari are husband and wife. They had two minor children by name, A.C. Muktesh and A.C. Nayan. In a road accident, on 19-7-2004, Sri L. Chandrashekar and Smt. Premakumari died leaving behind their estate and their two minor children. Petitioner who is the maternal grandfather of minor children filed a petition under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act ('the Act' for short) in...
Shashikanth N. Kinnarkar S/O Late Nilo Kinnarkar Vs. the State of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ85; 2007(5)AIRKarR225
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In the instant case, petitioner is assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 22.2.2001, of the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-U and the impugned order dated 5.6.2006, of the 1st respondent vide Annexure-Y as the same are illegal, bad in law, arbitrary one. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to duty as Peon with all consequential benefits such as continuity of service, service benefits, monetary benefits and all other benefits flowing therefrom.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, petitioner was working as Peon at Town Municipal Council, Dandeli and he has been transferred to Special Tahasildar/ Secretary, Land Tribunal III Hangal, on 31.8.1981. Accordingly he has reported for duty at transferred place and he has taken leave to make arrangement to bring his family to the transferred place on 2.9.1981. After completion of leave when he has gone to the office of the Special Tahas...
Sri. Shivananjaiah S/O Late Shankarappa Vs. the Chief Mechanical Engin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR29]; ILR2007KAR3260; 2007(6)KarLJ309; 2007(4)KCCR2277; 2007(5)AIRKarR234
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. Award dated 30th August 2004 in I.D.N. 129/1996 is called in question.2. Petitioner raised a dispute under Section 10-4A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') interalia alleging that the dismissal order dated 13.3.1996 passed by the Corporation is illegal and violative of Section 25-F of the Act.3. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for remaining unauthorised absent. The enquiry was concluded with a finding that, the charge is proved. Based on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal.4. On service of the dismissal order, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court without going into the merits, held that it has no jurisdiction, as the petitioner was working at Mangalore Division and a disciplinary action was initiated at Mangalore Division. Further, an order of dismissal was also passed by the Mangalore Division and held that the substantial...
The Executive Engineer, Pwd, Vs. Sri H.S. Sharaschandra S/O M.S.S. Raj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR941]; ILR2007KAR5368; 2007(5)KarLJ589; 2007(4)AIRKarR655
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the award dated 18.5.2006 passed in Reference No. 282/01 on the file of the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga.2. On a reference Under Section 10(1)(c) of the I.D Act, the Labour court passed an award inter alia directing the respondents to reinstate the claimant into service as daily wage worker on prevailing daily wages within a period of a months from the date of award coming into force i.e., on its publication and denied continuity of service and back wages for any period.3. The case of the respondent is that he is a Graduate in Engineering and he has worked as a daily wage employee with effect from 16.6.1984 continuously till 1.9.1985 and he had completed 240 days of continuous service in a year and denial of work to him amounts to violation of Section 25-F of the I.D Act and sought for conciliation of the dispute. On failure of the conciliation, the Conciliation Officer is stated to have reported the same to ...
Director Maruti Feeds and Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Basanna Pattekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC329; 2008CriLJ157; 2007(5)KLJ319
V.G. Sabahit, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. This appeal filed by the complainant is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 5-8-2006 passed by the JMFC, Dharwad in CC No. 483/2003.2. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that P.W. 1 is a Director of the complainant-company and he was authorised to depose on behalf of the company and the trial Court was not justified in holding that P.W. 1 had no authority to depose on behalf of the company and that the trial Court has erred in holding that the complainant has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. I have considered the contentions of Learned Counsel with reference to the material on record. It is not disputed that the complainant is a company registered under the Companies Act and P.W. 1 apart from his own self serving statement that he is the Director who is authorised to depose on behalf of the company, has not produced any documentary...
M. Jana Bai W/O I. Krishnamurthy Naidu and P. Prema Bai Vs. M. Govardh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant140; ILR2007KAR4338; 2007(6)KarLJ4239
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment of both the courts below i.e., by the Addl. Munsiff, Bellary in OS 799/1989 passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and also in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants in RA 11/1991 by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn), Bellary.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs before the Addl. Munsiff, Bellary for declaration and possession claiming that the suit schedule house property belongs to one Ramanjulu Naidu who died on 6.5.1935. Prior to his death, he had executed a registered will dated 24.4.1935 directing that his property should devolve on the plaintiffs by virtue of the Will. As per the recitals in the Will, Smt. Chudamani Wife of the testator Ramanjulu Naidu should remain in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule house property in lieu of her maintenance during her life time and she had no right of alienation and after her death, the house property shall devolve on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »