Karnataka Court October 2008 Judgments
Preetham Bhargav K.S. Vs. S.B.R.R. Mahajan First Grade College and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR5127; 2009(6)KarLJ446; 2009(1)AIRKarR517; AIR2009NOC1245; 2009(1)KCCRSN17
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. Petitioner had joined the first respondent college for the study of B. Com Degree course for the academic year 2005-2006. The first respondent-college is affiliated to the second respondent-University. The B.Com degree course is a three years course consisting of six semesters. The petitioner has completed five semesters successfully. The petitioner was issued with a hall ticket (Annexure 'B') to appear for the 6th semester examination scheduled to commence from 21.5.2008. However, he was not permitted to attend the examination on the ground that he had shortage of attendance in the 6th semester. Since several students of the first respondent-college were not permitted to appear for the said examination on the ground of shortage of attendance, it appears that the University has clarified to the college that the students who have put in more than 60% attendance can appear for the examination subject to payment of certain penalty.2. However, petitioner was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Recreation Association Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ337
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition is a Recreation Association represented by its Secretary, Sri Prakash. Petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner-Association to obtain a licence for the play of dart game, chess, rummy, snooker and carrom either under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 or under the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989, as the above said games are declared as games of skill by this Hon'ble Court.2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner-Association and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, at the outset, submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner-Association is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself by imposing exemplary cost for the reason that, petitioner-Association has not approached this Court with clean hands and stated true facts before this Co...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Amco Batteries Limited Represented by Mr. S. Sankara Pan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-2008
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR471]; 2009(2)KarLJ486; 2009(1)KCCR638; 2009(3)AIRKarR319(D.B)
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 11.4.2008 made in Writ Petition No. 42619 of 2004 partly allowing the said writ petition where the appellant-management had challenged the award dated 11.08.2006 in I.D. No. 126 of 1999.2. The brief facts that led the management to file the above writ appeal are stated hereunder:The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court against the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-management holding the respondent-workman guilty of misconduct for having remained unauthorisedly absent for 43 days during the year 1998 of course after a due enquiry.2.1 The Labour Court in the said award dated 11.08.2004 in I.D. No. 126 of 1999 held the enquiry was fair and proper. However, considering the explanation offered by the respondent-workman that during the relevant period of absence as per the supporting evidence, the respondent was the eldest son and his brother was mentally retarded and he was...
Tag this Judgment!Udupi and Dakshina Kannada Districts Temples Management Association (R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ166
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners, being aggrieved by the impugned communications dated 15th May, 2007 vide Annexure-A and dated 5th May, 2007 vide Annexure-Al and also the notifications dated 21st June, 2007 and 13th June, 2007 vide Annexure-B and C respectively issued by respondents 3 and 4, have presented the instant writ petition.2. The only grievance by the petitioners in the instant case is that, the first petitioner is a registered body, looking after the interest of archaks and trustees of various temples in Udupi and Dakshina Kannada Districts represented by its President. The second and third petitioners are Managing Trustees of Sri Nandaneshwara Temple, Panambur and Sri Durgaparameshwari Temple, Uppunda, Kundapura Taluk, respectively. It is the case of petitioners that, the second respondent has issued the impugned circulars dated 15th May, 2007 and 5th May, 2007, directing the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners to initiate the proceedings under Section 25 of the Karnataka ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri V.C. Chinnappa Goudar S/O Chandrashekar Goudar, Commissioner, City ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(9)KarLJ86
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The petitioner is a Commissioner of Nippani Municipality, Nippani. The Municipal Corporation even though had the approval to put up a treatment plant and then discharge the effluents into the Ambalajhuri river, on the same being refused for a further period by proceedings dated 30.12.2006, preferred an appeal under Section 28 which is pending before the Appellate Authority. In the meanwhile, the Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board1) had taken legal action against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate for having committed an offence under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Water Act'). Section 48 of the Water Act reads as hereunder:48. Offences by Government Departments.- Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of Government, the Head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be procee...
Tag this Judgment!SiddalIn Gaiah (Since Dead, by His L.Rs Smt. Varadamma W/O Late Siddal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR2272; 2008(5)KCCR3546; 2009(1)AIRKarR410; AIR2009NOC888
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant before the trial court and he is aggrieved by the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for cancellation of the adoption deed dated 23,8.48 and for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit properties, being decreed and the Lower appellate court confirming the same by dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendant. Thus, concurrent findings of the courts below are called in question.2. The plaintiffs case was that her husband Boregowda and Ningaiah @. Vadakantaiah were the sons of one Boregowda and both the sons mentioned above died long back and the plaintiff being the wife of 1st son Boregowda also lost her children and thereafter the plaintiff began to reside with her younger brother Karigowda and it is the case of the plaintiff Chikkamma, that she has been in possession of the suit schedule properties following an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition and later the plaintiff gave half share in all the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Jyotiba Desai and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ40
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is by CL-2 licensees who have been permitted to carry on vending of Indian liquor in retail at their respective premises.2. Petitioners have approached this Court on the premise that the Deputy Commissioner of the District has surprised them by issuing the notice dated 13-10-2008 calling upon the petitioners to shift the location of their business to some other place within three days from the date of receipt of the notice as otherwise the authorities will be constrained to close the shops forcibly from carrying on business at the existing location.3. It is aggrieved by such notice, the present writ petition.4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners Sri B.D. Hiremath, learned Counsel would vehemently urge that the notice in per se bad in law; that it is clearly violative of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (for short, 'the Rules'); that the petitioners have been asked to shift the...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar S/O Ankappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Dept. of Co-operati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ438; 2009(2)AIRKarR70; AIR2009NOC1223; 2009(2)KCCR973
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two appeals W.A. No. 1215/08 and W.A. No. 1223/08 arises out of and directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23.07.2008 in W.P. No. 6209/08.2. The assential facts of the case leading up to these appeals with reference to the rank of the parties in the writ petition are as follows:W.P. No. 5032/08 was filed seeking for quashing of the order passed by respondents-3 and 4 in Writ Petition and consequent calendar of events published as per Annexure-A to the writ petition. It is the case of the writ petitioner that writ petitioners are the residents of Yarehalli Village and members of the second respondent Yerehalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society. The calendar of events date 13.02.2008, the said election was postponed indefinitely by the same Election Officer on the apprehension that there was law and order situation and likelihood of breach of peace in the area and therbefore the elections were stalled.3. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Yessay Foodoils (Represented by Its Partners: Mohammed Iqbal S/O Late ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)KCCR3232; AIR2009Kant103; ILR2009KAR724; 2009(9)KarLJ156; 2009(3)AIRKarR352;
V. Jagannathan, J.1. Whether the suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm for possession and mesne profits can be said to be not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is the question that calls for an answer in this second appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the trial court.2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, who are the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, seeking the relief of possession and mesne profits with a direction to the defendant to deliver vacant possession of plaint 'A' schedule premises and for recovery of mesne profits at Rs. 500/- per day till the date of delivery of the vacant possession and it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was a tenant under them on a rent of Rs. 70/- per day and following the defendant unlawfully subletting the plaint schedule premises to one Mohammed Kunhi, the plaintiffs had to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice on 20.1.2003 requiring the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Yasser Ghias S/O Mr. Ather Ali Ghias Vs. Vishveswaraya Techno ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AIRKarR491; 2009(3)KLJ349; 2009(1)KCCR666; AIR2009Kant74; ILR2009KAR1046; 2009(3)KarLJ349; AIR2009Kar74(D.B).
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7129/2008 wherein he has challenged the order dated 11.4.2008 of the 1st respondent- University by which penalty of denial of benefit of performance of the Examinations conducted during December, 2007 to January 2008 and debarring the petitioner from appearing for any examination till December 2008/January, 2009 and other penalties were imposed.2.1. The facts of the case in brief are- that the appellant is a student studying in B.E- Information Technology in the 2nd respondent-college. While he was answering the 1 semester examination in Computer Concepts and C-Programming (Practical), he was found to be in possession of a mobile phone containing certain snaps relating to the subject. An enquiry was initiated into the malpractice committed by the Appellant-writ petitioner during the examination and a Committee was constituted to go into the allegation levelled against the appellant. The Committee recorded the state...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »