Karnataka Court October 2008 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.
Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ718:ILR2008(4)Kar5160:2008(4)KCCR2842:2008(6)AIRKarR428.
ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. These petitions are filed seeking, inter alia, the quashing of the proceedings in Crime Nos. 28 of 2008, 22 of 2008 and 23 of 2008 respectively. The said cases are registered against the petitioners complaining of the violations of the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' for short), which are punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act. In all the three cases, the interim orders of stay were granted for a limited period. Subsequently they are continued from time to time.2. Sri B.V. Acharya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Belliappa, appearing for the respondent has raised a threshold bar for the granting and/or continuation of the interim orders of stay. He has made the following submissions:(i)(a) There is a total ban on granting interim order staying the investigation proceedings. He submits that this Court, in exercise of the power, conferred by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedu...
K.C. Laxmana S/O Chinnegowda Vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Kant112; 2009(1)KarLJ602:2008(5)KCCR3337:2009(3)AIRKarR180
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. The appellant is the original defendant No. 2, against whom, respondent No. 1-original plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 262/91 in the Court of Munsiff at Mudigere, for a declaration that, the settlement deed dated 22.3.80, executed by his father, respondent No. 2 in this appeal, who was original defendant No. 1 in the suit, in favour of the present appellant, is null and void and to set aside the same as not binding on him and for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit property and for an enquiry into mesne profits and other consequential reliefs. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the appellant as defendant No. 2 and respondent No. 1 as plaintiff, in the latter part of this judgment.The case of the plaintiff is that his father defendant No. 1, has executed a registered sale deed dated 22.3.1980 (Ex.P1), without his consent and behind his back, alienating the suit property in favour of defendant No. 2 without any legal necessity ...
Daffodils English School Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR104
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. In this set of petitions, petitioners have challenged the Government Order dated 30.5.02 passed in continuation of the Government Order dated 29.4.94 regarding language policy wherein the State Government has extended Kannada as Medium of Instruction for 5th standard also as a medium of instruction, wherein in the earlier Government Order it had directed the schools recognized by the State to have Kannada as medium of instruction from 1st standard to 4th standard.'2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Vijay Shankar for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Government Advocate Sri. B. Manohar.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Department of Education and Ors. : ILR2008KAR2895 wherein Clauses 2,3,6 & 8 of the Government Order dated 29.4.94 compelli...
Sri Krishna Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Represented by Its Secr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR189; 2009(9)KarLJ107; 2009(2)KCCRSN422; 2009(2)AIRKarR439.(D.B)
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 24th June, 2008 made in writ petition No. 296 of 2008 whereby the lease of fishing rights granted in favour of the appellant herein in respect of Thippagondanahalli tank to an extent of 1,162 hectares vide Government Order No. PNM:86:MEE:2007 BANGALORE dated 2.4.2007 by the Government of Karnataka for a period of five years (2006-07 to 2010-11) i.e. from 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2011, at a cost of Rs. 87,450/- for 2006-07, Rs. 91,508 for 2007-08, Rs. 96,083/- for 2008-09, Rs. 1,00,887/- for 2009-10 and Rs. 1,05,932/- for 2010-11, was quashed at the instance of Respondents 6 to 23, who were the writ petitioners before the learned single Judge, on the ground that the said lease was contrary to the scheme formulated by the Government by Gazette Notification dated 16.2.2006.2. According to Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant-society has a subsisting lease in their favour granted vide lease or...
Cauvery theatre and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: (2009)25VST99(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This review petition is in respect of the order dated September 17, 2008 passed in W.P. No. 19802 of 2007 see page 81 supra which was disposed of along with another petition.2. The main ground for seeking review is that the court has not examined the validity of the impugned legislation in the context of the very terminology employed to attack validity of the provisions, namely, that the provision is an arbitrary provision; that there is no reference to this ground in the order. On such premise the petitioner has sought for reviewing the order.3. Submission of Sri Dhananjay, learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioner, is that the main ground of attack on the validity of the legislation was that the uneven distribution of tax burden under the impugned legislation resulted in arbitrariness. The impact of the legislation was one resulting in discrimination and therefore it was an arbitrary provision of law and therefore this aspect needs to be exam...
The Branch Manager, Lic India and the Divisional Manager, Divisional O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: ILR2009(1)Kar141; 2009(1)KarLJ256; 2009(3)AIRKarR25
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India has preferred this appeal calling in question the judgment of the lower appellate Court by which the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was set aside and the suit was decreed and permanent injunction was granted restraining the Branch Manager, LIC and the Divisional Manager, LIC from recovering the rural incentive bonus paid to the respondent/plaintiff for the period from September, 1994 to August, 1997, Aggrieved by the reversal of the trial Court's judgment by the lower appellate Court, the first defendant Branch Manager has come up in this second appeal.2. The facts briefly are that the respondent/plaintiff was working as a Development Officer of the LIC of India at its branch at Chitradurga and as per the Incentive Bonus Scheme 1997 ('the scheme 1997' for short), the Development Officer was paid 10% of the basic incentive bonus in accordance with the aforesaid scheme and subsequently, during audit which was ...
Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology (a Recognised Socie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KCCRSN40; 2009(2)AIRKarR477(D.B)
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the order dated 15.07.2008 passed in W.P. No. 28326/2002, wherein, the learned single Judge of this Court has modified the order passed by the Chairman of the Executive Committee, Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology - fourth respondent, by setting aside the penalty of dismissal and has modified the penalty to withholding four increments with cumulative effect.2. The writ petition was filed by the employee of the first respondent in the writ petition averring that he was appointed as a Fellow (Information) in the year 1986. He applied for Leave Travel Concession (for short, 'LCT'), to visit Benaras for the period from 20.12.1999 to 03.01.2000. The respondents, hereinafter referred to as the 'management' sanctioned LTC, and an amount of Rs. 8,700/- was released. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner, by order dated 27.03.2000, time granted for utilization of the LTC, was extended from 03.04.2000 to 17.04.2000, faili...
M. Rathnam S/O Late Maya and ors. Vs. Smt. Susheelamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Kant79; 2009(2)AIRKarR518.
Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The appellant Nos. 1 to 7 herein, being the legal representatives of the deceased defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 435/1986 on the file of the learned XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) have challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2001 passed in the said suit decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 8.10.1985 in respect of the suit property bearing No. 5/5 situate at 30th Cross, H.C. Byrasandra, Tank Bund Road, Tilaknagar, Bangalore, having two shops and a residential house.2. Stated in brief, the case of the plaintiff (hereinafter parties are referred to as per their rank in the original suit before the Trial Court) as averred in her plaint is as under:(i) On 9.11.1984 the 2nd defendant let out the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 310/-. At that time, the plaintiff paid to the ...
The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramaswamy ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2006ACJ2508; ILR2009KAR337; 2009(5)KarLJ538
Subhash B. Adi, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment and award in M.V.C. Nos. 8458 and 8459/2005 dated 8th November 2006 on the file of M.A.C.T., Bangalore.2. Respondent No. 2 in both the cases are the claimants. On 11.11.2005 at about 7.45 p.m., both claimants were proceeding on scooter as a rider and pillion rider on the extreme left side of road. When it reached G.K. Paints factory, a tempo bearing No. KA-03/A-4874 came from opposite direction driven in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against both the claimants, as a result of which, they fell down and sustained grievous injury. They were taken to Doddaballapura Government Hospital, from there they were shifted to Bowring Hospital, they took treatment as inpatient and also as outpatient3. Before the Tribunal, claimants got themselves examined as PWs-1 and 2. They also examined one doctor as PW-3. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked in their evidence and on behalf of the Insurance Company, one N. Kris...
Smt. D. Dhanalakshmi W/O P. Dhakshinamurthy Vs. the Bangalore Mahanaga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR372]; 2009(3)KarLJ526:2009(1)KCCR607
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.7.2007 in writ petition No. 10402/2005.2.1. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner was an employee of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, who had been proceeded in a domestic enquiry, which resulted in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement by the disciplinary authority on the charges of issuance of incorrect and false birth certificates by the appellant/petitioner while functioning as Sub-Registrar at the Office of the Registration of Births and Deaths, which finding has been confirmed by the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority reduced the punishment to one of reduction of emoluments of the appellant/petitioner to the minimum in the pay- scale in the cadre in which she was working, against which a writ petition was filed. The learned Single by the order impugned herein dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appeal.3. Heard the learned ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »