Karnataka Court July 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.
Laxmipathi Vs. the Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant173; 2007(5)KarLJ342; 2007(5)AIRKarR342; AIR2007Kant173
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the Notification dated 27-11-2006 produced vide Annexure-H issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, notifying the reservation in favour of different categories for the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in respect of different Grama Panchayats coming within Chennagiri Taluk of Davanagere District.2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as per the impugned notification, the reservation for the post of Adhyaksha for the Kondadahalli Grama Panchayat is made in favour of Scheduled Caste which would in effect result in reservation being made in favour of woman candidate. It is the contention of the petitioner that the post of Adhyaksha has been reserved on more than one occasions in favour of the woman candidate.3. Out of the elected members of the Panchayat, a lone candidate who is elected as Scheduled Caste candidate is a lady and if the post of Adhyaksha is reserved in favour of Scheduled Caste candidate, it will necessaril...
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Represented by Duly Constituted Atto ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2306; 2007(5)KarLJ306; 2007(5)AIRKarR91; AIR2007NOC2147
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The Insurance Company is in appeal being aggrieved by the liability being put on it by the MACT, Bangalore City, to satisfy the award amount of Rs. 37,920/- in favour of the claimant sand the main ground urged in the appeal is that the claimant travelled as a passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore, the risk is not covered by the policy in question.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. The appellant's counsel Shri. Jaiprakash submitted that it is not in dispute that the claimant travelled in the lorry in question as a gratuitous passenger and this is evident from the very evidence of the claimant himself and therefore, the Tribunal could not have put the liability on the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4, i.e. owner of the lorry submitted that the claimant travelled in the lorry in question because the lorry driver was new to Bangalore and was looking for an address an...
Sri M.N. Sudarshan Vs. V. Murali Narayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3415; 2008(1)KarLJ500; AIR2007NOC2351Kar; 2007(4)KCCR2257; 2007(5)AIRKarR430
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. Admit. The records are secured and since the subject matter of the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is taken up for final disposal. During the course of this judgment, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.2. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-8-2006 passed by the learned trial judge in OS No. 6804/2004 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment and also for damages, is before this Court.3. Facts germane for the disposal of these proceedings can be summarized as follows;The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is a tenant in respect of a portion of first floor of the premises bearing No. 70, New No. 70/2, Mamulpet, Bangalore 560 053. The defendant occupied the suit schedule property by taking over a business concern and requested the plaintiff to recognize him as a tenant. It is thereafter the plaintiff recognized him as a tenant in respect of the suit schedule property. The tenancy ...
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Boregowda and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ934; ILR2008KAR64; 2008(1)KCCR300; 2008(1)AIRKarR409; 2008LabIC(NOC)336(Kar)
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The question of law is, when the tractor and trailer are insured by two different Companies, whether both the Companies are liable to pay compensation or one of the company is liable to pay compensation?2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident. MFA 4784/ 2006 is filed by the insurer. MFA 3911/06 is filed by the claimants contending that the computation of income by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is contrary to the evidence on record.3. The tractor belongs to respondent No. 3 and insured with the appellant. The trailer belongs to the respondent No. 4 insured with the respondent No. 5 (appellant in MFA4784/06).4. It is the contention of the appellant that the tractor by itself does not constitute goods vehicle. One Chennegowda, an inmate of the trailer, died in the accident. Respondents 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased who made claim before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the tract...
Sri V.N.K. Menon Vs. Sri S. Maqbool Ahamed Basha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ333
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 15th June 2007 passed by the Learned Single Judge granting an interim order of stay, staying all further proceedings pursuant to the mining lease granted to the appellant herein, for a period of three months.2. Though the matter is posted of for preliminary hearing, since in the order passed either way would result in the disposal of the Writ Appeal itself and for that matter, the Writ Petition itself, with the consent of Learned Counsel on both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. The Respondent No. 1 herein, is the petitioner in the Writ Petition 9217/-7 and he has challenged the order dated 25th May 2007 of the Revisional Authority constituted under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 in the Revision Application No. 13/(4) 2007-RCI. This Revision Petition is filedagainst the notification dated 12 January 2007 granting Mining lease to the appellant here...
Cit Vs. Sabari Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR141(KAR); [2008]298ITR141(Karn)
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These appeals are filed by the revenue questioning the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No ITA 1713/Bang/2005, dated 17-3-2006, framing the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the contributions made by the assessee to PF and ESI are allowable deduction even though it is made beyond the stipulated period as contemplated under the mandatory provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43B of the Act as the same was paid by the assessee on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income as per Section 139(1) of the Act ?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amendment to Section 43B of the Act which had been introduced by Finance Act, 2003, w.e.f 1-4-2004 should be read retrospectively and should be understood as if Section 43B would not be applicable to the assessee in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CI...
G.K. Lakshminarayan, Vs. the Secretary, the State of Karnataka, Primar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ316; 2007(5)AIRKarR277
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners claim to be physically handicapped persons who are all interested in seeking employment under the State Government as teachers to work in High Schools. It is the case of the petitioners that they are qualified for filing up the posts of teachers.2. The main grievance of the petitioners' is that the State Government it appears which had initiated the process of recruitment to appoint teachers in various high schools in terms of a notification published on 25.9.2006, copy at Annexure-A to the petition, and even after the petitioners had sought for employment by making suitable applications partly seeking for appointment against the posts ear-marked for physically handicapped persons at 5% of the total number of posts notified, the State Government has not given effect to this reservation in the matter of recruitment; that notwithstanding the provisions of 'Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, protection of rights and full participati...
The Workmen of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Repr. by K.S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ393; ILR2007(3)Kar3755; 2007(5)AIRKarR257; AIR2007NOC2234
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The first petitioner is the KSRTC Staff & Workers Federation and the 2nd petitioner is the Secretary of Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Fund and an employee of KSRTC. They have filed this writ petition seeking the following prayers:33. Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may, after calling for the records, be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other proper writ or order or direction quashing the Government Order dated 23/2/1997 bearing No. HTD 127 TRA 96 dated 22/2/1997 and RTD TRA 96 dated 7/8/1997 produced as Annexures-A and B respectively, and to direct the Government to take all other steps for improving the well being of the KSRTC, as pointed out by various Committees of Legislature. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue further direction quashing the Notification dt. 10/9/1997 bearing No. HTD 127 TRA 96; Notification dt.29/5/1999 bearing No. HTD 127 TRA 96 and the Notification dated 4/8/2000 bearing No. ...
Smt. Kashamma W/O. Basant @ Basavantrao Vs. Sri Mahadevappa S/O. Devap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3512; 2008(1)KarLJ652
ORDERChidananda Ullal and H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 filed O.S. No. 4/1981 against respondent Nos. 11 to 16 for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties and the same came to be decreed in part. Subsequently the decree of the trial Court came to be confirmed in R.A. No. 68/1987 and finally in R.S.A. No. 700/1993. Thereafter respondent Nos. 1 to 10 filed F.D.P. No. 4/2000 to draw the final decree. In this F.D.P. No. 4/2000 petitioner fifed I.A. No. 5 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead her as a party to the final decree proceedings. The trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2006 dismissed I.A. No. 5 by holding that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the final decree proceedings. Aggrieved by this order of the trial Court petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 828/2006 under Section 115 CPC. Learned Single Judge after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner referred the matter to the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of revision ...
K.S. Basavarajappa S/O Eranna @ Subbaiah and Ningamma W/O Muddanahalli ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ292; ILR2007(4)Kar4129; 2007(4)KCCR2363; 2007(5)AIRKarR250; AIR2007NOC2432
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree poised by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur, in OS 8/1993.2. The suit is filed for partition and possession by the plaintiffs in respect of the properties comprised of land, house and moveable articles. The 1st plaintiff is the younger brother and 2nd plaintiff is the elder sister of the defendant against whom the plaintiffs joined together, filed a suit for partition and possession. It is stated that their father died 35 years ago and that the suit properties are the joint family properties and they are in joint possession, and that defendant is trying to alienate the suit schedule properly despite the attempt made by the plaintiffs to effect partition and since defendant did not accede to the request, the suit is filed.3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is his specific case that during 1963 itself there was a partition effected between the two brothers and at that time 1 acre of land was gifted to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »