Karnataka Court September 2007 Judgments
State of Arunachal Pradesh Rep. by Its Section Officer and ors. Vs. Un ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant123; ILR2008KAR2095; 2008(4)KarLJ501; 2008(3)KCCR1298; 2008(3)AIRKarR186; AIR2008Kar123; 2008AIHC2435(Kar)(DB)
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. In all the above cases, the second respondent vide Notification dated 27.3.2007 - Annexure - A imposed ban on sale of 'paper, on-line and internet lotteries' prohibiting sale of all types of paper, computerised and on-line lottery of Karnataka and other States and lotteries organised by other countries marketed and operated through vending machines, terminals electronic machines and tickets sold through internet in Karnataka with effect from 1.4.2007 and declaring the Karnataka State as a lottery free zone henceforth.2. The appellants in all the three appeals, filed writ petitions challenging that Notification dated 27.3.2007 (Annexure- A) issued in exercise of power Under Section 5 of the Lottery (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Central Act No. 17 of 1998) as ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245, 298, 301 to 304 and Entry 40 List I in VII Schedule to the Constitution of India and that Notification is colourable exercise of power.3. In the budget of Karnataka State for t...
Tag this Judgment!N.G. Puttaswamy Vs. the Tahsildar and Returning Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR4728; 2008(3)KarLJ98
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In the instant case, petitioner has prayed to call for the relevant Lower Court records as well as the ballot boxes containing voted ballot papers of the election, which was held on 29th August 2005 for the directorship of the second respondent - APMC and pass an order for recounting the same and declare the election result in accordance with law and alternatively declare that, the respondent No. 1 has not properly prepared and complied with Form Nos. 22 and 23 strictly in terms of Rules 35 and 37 of the Rules and to declare that, respondent No. 3 returned candidate with respect to the Anagodu APMC constituency No. 9 declared by first respondent as void and also to declare that, the petitioner has been duly elected for Anagodu APMC constituency No. 9 and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23rd February 2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Davanagere in Ele Misc.4/2005 vide Annexure-O.2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupati Adhesives Private Limited Vs. Visen Industries Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: [2008]142CompCas384(Kar); ILR2008KAR788; 2008(3)KarLJ612; 2008(1)KCCRSN47; 2008(2)AIRKarR334(DB)
1. This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the Appellant who is respondent in Company Petition No. 157/2005 on the file of the learned Company Judge of this Court aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2006 admitting the said company petition which was filed by the respondent herein under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and directing the respondent herein (petitioner therein) to take advertisement in 'The Hindu' daily newspaper fixing therein the date of hearing.2. Stated in brief, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:a.) Respondent presented the said Company Petition against appellant (hereinafter the parties are referred to as per their ranking in this appeal) under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Act seeking winding up of the appellant company on the ground that certain dues have remained unpaid to the respondent company by the appellant company despite demand by the former to th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meenaxi Vs. Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissione ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ712; 2007(6)AIRKarR593; 2008CriLJNOC152(DB)
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the respondents.2. The matter was earlier heard by us. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor considering the point involved in this writ petition, we requested the learned Advocate General to assist the Court. Accordingly, he has assisted the Court and argued the matter in detail.3. The petitioner is the wife of one Sadanand Baddi who has been detained under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985. The present petition is filed by the petitioner requesting the Court to declare the detention of her husband Sadanand Baddi, passed by the 1st respondent dated 20th April, 2007 and approved by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-D, dated 25-4-2007 as illegal and void ab initio.4. The Additional Distinct...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Krishnaveni W/O. R. Mohanraju Vs. the Management of Sri Taralabal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KCCR155; 2008(1)AIRKarR23; 2008LabIC(NOC)200(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who was working as a 'Teacher' in a private aided educational institution who it appears suffered an order of dismissal in terms of the order dated 18.2.2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 -Management of Sri Taralabalu Jagadguru Education Society (Regd.,), Sirigere, Chitradurga District and which order had been questioned by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act') before the Educational Appellate Tribunal at Chitradurga, but the appeal having been declined to be considered by the tribunal on the premise that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the petitioner was not serving within the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal and having returned the memorandum of appeal to the petitioner to be presented before the appellate tribunal having jurisdiction, the present writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Kum. N. Pavithra Vs. H.M. Vijayakumar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1297; ILR2007KAR4770; 2007(4)Kar4770
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The claimant-injured dissatisfied with the award of Rs. 30,000/- as global compensation for personal injuries by common Judgment and award dt. 29.12.2005 in MVC 732/04, on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC -cum- Member, MACT-VI, Hospet, for short the 'MACT', has presented this appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. Before the MACT, the appellant laid evidence both oral and documentary and examined one Dr. Vishwaprasad, Surgeon, as PW-3, who testified to the fact that the appellant suffered three simple and one grievous injury, viz., disc prolapse and hip disc between C-3 and C-4 vertebra, diagnosed as compression fracture of clavicle spine and disc prolapse of C-3 and C-4, which even after treatment was found to be malunited. The opinion of PW-3 was that the appellant suffered 15-20% total partial permanent disability. The MACT disbelieved the medical bills issued at Hospet, since prescriptions were issued by the Medical Officer, M.M. Halli. The MACT...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. K. Vasantha Kumari Vs. D. Devendra Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1001; 2008(1)AIRKarR398; AIR2008NOC696; 2008CriLJ1001;
A.C. Kabbin, J.1. Challenging the acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in judgment dated 15-9-2003 passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in CC No. 30685/2001, the complainant of that case has filed this appeal.2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:The accused, the complainant and 4 persons were partners in a firm named Sri. Venkateshwara Finance Corporation: The main business of that firm was money lending. Due to persona] problems the complainant and 4 others were forced to retire from the abovesaid firm with effect from 27-6-1998. The accused agreed to continue the business of the firm in his individual capacity and to that extent an agreement was executed between the complainant and the accused along with 4 others on 27-6-1998. As per the agreement the accused agreed to return her capital and hand loan standing at the credit of the complainant as on 31-3-199...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer, K.E.B. (Now Kptcl) Vs. Rayanagouda, Dead by Lr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR4713; 2008(5)KarLJ1672007(4)KCCR2678.
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The question involved in these writ petitions are one and the same and that being purely a question of law, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. The land belonging to first respondent was acquired for the benefit of petitioner. Awards were passed. Being aggrieved by the said award, the landlords preferred reference to the Civil Court. The Civil Court after enquiry enhanced the compensation payable to land owners. Thereafter, execution petitions were filed for recovery of the amount awarded by the Reference Court. The amount claimed in those Execution Petitions were fully paid.3. It is not in dispute that no interest was paid on the solatium amount and additional market value in view of the law which governed the parties as on those days of the award. However, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India 2001 AIR SCW 3692 held that, the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.M. Niranjan and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ554; ILR2007KAR5307; ILR2007(4)Kar5307; 2008(5)KLJ286; 2007(6)AIRKarR597; AIR2008NOC9; 2008(2)CivilLJ776; 2008ACJ554
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The insurer of the Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA-09-EE-3947, has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and award dated 30.09.2006 in MVC No. 235/06 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Malavalli (for short 'MACT').2. The first respondent filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') numbered as MVC 235/06, for Rs. 5,00,000/-, as compensation, for injuries sustained, while as a pillion rider, in an accident that occurred on 05.05.2005 due to the rash and negligent riding by the second respondent-owner of the Motor Cycle insured by the appellant. Before the MACT, the insured was arraigned as the first respondent, filed his written statement dated 01.12.05 admitting the factum of accident and injuries to the claimant, but denied the allegation of rash and negligent riding of the Motor Cycle. The appellant arraigned as the second respondent, though served with Court notice remained absent and...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sundar Rao, Vs. K. Ramakrishna Rao S/O K. Gangaya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR4308; 2008(4)KarLJ18
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. This writ petition arises out of an interim order passed on I.A. No. 4 dated 8.8.2007 in FDP No. 5/2001 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.)., Udupi.2. K. Ramakrishna Rao-respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S.No. 17/1987 on the file of the Principal Munsiff at Karkala against his elder brother Narayana Shervegara and one K. Sheshappayya for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 7.1.1992. An appeal filed against the said judgment and decree in R.A.No. 29/1992 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)., Udupi, was also dismissed. Narayana Shervegara died in the meantime. K. Ramakrishna Rao filed FDP No. 5/2001 against the legal representatives of Narayana Shervegara and K. Sheshappayya requesting the court below to pass a final decree for partition and delivery of his 1/3rd share in the plaint 'A' schedule properties in pursuance of the preliminary decree. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »