Karnataka Court July 2007 Judgments
Master B.K. Raghu S/O. Keshava S. Naik Since Minor Rep. by His Father, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant186; ILR2007KAR3656; 2008(1)KarLJ68
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.07.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has declined to condone the deficiency of attendance of the petitioner in his studies in SSLC.3. Petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion. By order dated 26.06.2007 passed in W.P. No. 7515/2007 this Court directed the Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with Regulation 37(3) of the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board First Regulations, 1966 (for short 'the Regulations'). In the said order passed by this Court, it was made clear that the provisions contained in Regulation 37(2) and 37(3) of the Regulations would show that they do not place any fetters on the power of the Board to condone the de...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Ramakantha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secretary Reven ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3845; 2007(6)KarLJ672;
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioner filed application in Form No. 7A under the provisions of Section 77A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, praying for grant of occupancy rights over the lands bearing Survey Nos. 191/ 1,216/1 and 217/1, measuring 2 acres 5 guntas, 2 acres 8 guntas and 2 acres 22 guntas respectively, situated at Chikkamaralavadi village.2. The application came to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of Survey Nos. 216/1 and 217/1 and whereas, the application in respect of Survey No. 191/1 was allowed. Challenging the rejection of the application in respect of Survey Nos. 216/1 and 217/1, the petitioner herein filed Appeal No 674/2002 before the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The appeal came to be dismissed by the order dated 28th March 2003. Hence, this writ petition is filed.3. The orders of both the authorities below in so far as they relate to the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner in respect of Survey Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Veenadevi Jalan Owner of Krishna Agency Vs. Boregowda S/O. Shivegowda ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2396; 2007(6)KarLJ589; AIRKarR27.
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for respondents.2. The present appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle involved, in challenge to the award for payment of compensation on the ground that the liability has been fastened on him. It is his primary contention that the as a result of the accident an injury has occurred to a gratuitous passenger carried in a goods vehicle. The Tribunal has proceeded on the footing that the insurer does not cover the risk, of the gratuitous passenger carried in a goods vehicle and has proceeded to fasten the entire liability on the owner. The counsel for the appellant would submit that though in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to the Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994, the insurer was not required to cover the risk, of a Charterer of the goods vehicle or his representative, or any gratuitous passenger in a vehicle. The terms of the policy in the case on hand, under which the risk w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Stc Vs. First Flight Couriers Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Kar)550; 2007[8]STR225; [2008]12STT127; (2008)18VST282(Karn)
1. The correctness of the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal' in short) dated 19-11-2004 in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Commissionerate, Bangalore, is questioned in this Appeal by the appellant urging various legal grounds in support of the substantial question of law framed in this Appeal and prayed to answer the same in favour of the revenue, which reads thus,-Whether Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 relating to Service tax to be read as the penalty which shall not be less than Rs. 100/- per day but for every day during which such failure continues' or 'the penalty which shall not be less than Rs. 100/- in absolute terms'?The grounds urged in support of the said question of law by the appellant is that the Appellate Authority while exercising its appellate jurisdiction overlooked the statutory provision of Section 76 of the Finance Act and not considered the finding and reas...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Jagadeesh S/O M.S. Kempaiah Vs. the Registrar General, High Court ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ157; 2008(3)KCCR1863; 2008(5)AIRKarR164(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8924/2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents in the Writ Appeal are the respondents in the Writ Petition.2. While the appellant was working as Stenographer in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Tumkur he applied for change of cadre and requested for appointment as First Division Assistant on medical grounds. In his representation requesting for change of cadre and appointment as First Division Assistant, he gave an undertaking that he was willing to become junior to the juniormost First Division Assistant in the unit. Rule-16(a)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 permitted such change of cadre if the employee was willing to become junior to the juniormost in the new cadre. Hence the request of the appellant was granted and he was appointed by transfer to the post of First Division Assistant on medical grounds subject to the condition that h...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mallamma Vs. the State of Karnataka, Revenue Department and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4041
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The land belonging to the appellant bearing Sy. No. 12/1 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situate at Kareguddadahalli, Chikkabanavar Post, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was declared as excess land by the Government under the Urban Land Ceiling Act (U.L.C. Act) Under Section 10(3) of the U.L.C. Act by Gazette Notification. The notice was issued to the appellant Under Section 10(5) to surrender the above excess land.2. The appellant challenged the order of declaration that the above land is a excess land in Appeal No. 12/1990-91 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The appeal was dismissed confirming the orders passed Under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the U.L.C. Act.3. The amendment Act No. 15/1999 repelled the U.L.C. Act of 1976. Section 3 of the amendment Act reads as follows:3. Savings.- (1) The repeal of the principle Act shall not affect- (a) the vesting of any vacant land under Sub-section (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been ta...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Ramakantha Rao. Vs. State of Karnataka Rep by Its Secretary Reven ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3845
1. The petitioner filed application in Form No.7A under the provisions of Section 77A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, praying for grant of occupancy rights over the lands bearing Survey Nos. 191/1,216/1 and 217/1, measuring 2 acres 5 guntas, 2 acres 8 guntas and 2 acres 22 guntas respectively, situated at Chikkamaralavadi village.2. The application came to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of Survey Nos.216/1 and 217/1 and whereas, the application in respect of Survey No. 191/1 was allowed. Challenging the rejection of the application in respect of Survey Nos.216/1 and 217/1, the petitioner herein filed Appeal No.674/2002 before the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The appeal came to be dismissed by the order dated 28th March 2003. Hence, this writ petition is filed.3. The orders of both the authorities below in so far as they relate to the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner in respect of Survey Nos.216/1 and 217/1, are against the m...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Haseena Begum Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(3)KAR3582; 2007(6)KarLJ377; 2007(4)KCCRSN214; 2007(6)AIRKarR284
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 26th July 2006 passed in Appeal No. 450/2004 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore vide AnnexureT, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order dated 31st October 2003 passed by the first respondent in proceedings No. UL/ND/CR.55/2003-04 granting the land in favour of respondents 4 to 7 in Survey No. 107 measuring an extent of 02 acres, situate at Nellur Village, Channagiri Tauk, Davangere District. The petitioner has further sought for quashing the grant of land by respondents 2 and 3 as per Annexure C, which are the lands in unauthorized occupation and possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question which was granted to respondents 4 to 7 illegally without the authority of law, whose Sl. Nos. are disclosed as 73 to 76 each granted 0.30 acres of land. Further, she has sought for a direction to respondents 1 to...
Tag this Judgment!Sri N. Muniraju Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3400; 2007(6)KarLJ511; 2007(3)KCCR2069; 2007(5)AIRKarR513
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated, 22.6.2007 passed by first respondent in Revision Petition No. 79/06-07 as per Annexure-N and also the order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent, in RA. No. 377/04-05, as per Annexure-M, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction to confirm the order passed by the 3rd respondent in MR No. 74/04-05 dated 24.12.2004, as per Annexure-K.2. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, petitioner and his family are agriculturists and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy. No. 40 measuring 2 acres 02 guntas situate at Munnikolala village. He has succeeded to the said property from his ancestors and the said land was granted in the name of his grandfather as early as on 20.10.1940 under the Deprived Class Rules. The said land has been sold to one Sri. Shamanna Reddy under registered sale deed dated 19.9.1955. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dr. K.S. Prakash and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ80
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One Anil Kumar-the deceased was employed as an attender under the 1st respondent (Private Medical Practitioner). On 13-10-1995 the 1st respondent (employer) directed the deceased workman at about 11.30 p.m. in the night to carry the drug load on the motor cycle from the clinic to his residence. The deceased while driving the motor cycle met with an accident an.' died. Second and third respondents herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased made a claim before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation. The Workmens' Compensation Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,13,570/-. The insurer of the motor cycle is directed to pay the compensation, hence the insurer is in appeal.2. Substantial question of law that arises for our consideration in this appeal are as follows.:a. Whether the entrustment of motor cycle by the 1st respondent to the deceased workman for the purpose of his clinic work is within the expression of 'engaged in driving...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »