Karnataka Court March 2008 Judgments
Anitha Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by the Circle Police Ins ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3329; ILR2008KAR3381
ORDERR.B. Naik, J.1. This Revision Petition is by the wife of the deceased Suresh who is claimed to have been killed by accused Nos. l to 3 and thereafter with the assistance of accused Nos. 5 and 6 who are the neighbouring villagers. They screened away the material evidence and as such they were also implicated. The allegations are also made against accused No. 4. He was implicated in the case for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. the said petitioners are acquitted of the charge of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 177, 201 read with 149 IPC, by judgment dated 13.4.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in SC No. 13/1997.2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Suresh, the husband of the petitioner herein was the brother of accused No. 4 and accused No. 2 is wife of accused No. 4. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are the son and daughter of accused Nos. 2 to 4 respectively. Accused No. 4 being elder in the family was managing the family p...
Tag this Judgment!Sri A.V. Anthony Swamy Vs. the Management of St. John's Medical Colleg ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR158]; ILR2008KAR3361; 2008(6)KarLJ750; (2009)ILLJ481Kant; 2008(3)KCCR1895; 2008LabIC3572(Kar)
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.2001 in I.D. No. 181/1990 and award dated 17.12.2002 in I.D. No. 56/2002.2. Petitioner was appointed as a Helper and thereafter he was promoted as Laboratory Assistant. He was discharged from service on 17.7.1990. Petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its order dated 19th February 2001 held that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter on merit, the Industrial Tribunal held that the charge is proved and dismissed the dispute.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the enquiry is fair and proper. In this regard, she submitted that the petitioner was kept under suspension on the allegation that he had used abusive language against the Presenting Officer and he was not paid the subsistence allowance. She submitted that, it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to claim the subsistence allow...
Tag this Judgment!Banashankari Sugars Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Director Sri C.V. Pat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ141; 2009(4)AIRKarR80
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Hard the Counsel for the parties.2. The facts of the case are as follows:-The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner proposed to establish a sugar mill with a crushing capacity of 5000 TCD as well as a Co-generation Plant of 22 MW capacity in Tumkur Village of Shahapur Taluk, Gulbarga District, which is said to be a backward and under developed area. The estimated cost of the project was Rs. 49.70 crore. The petitioner had accordingly filed an application by way of an Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum (hereinafter referred to as 'IEM', for brevity) with the fourth respondent, as on 2.5.2006. This was duly acknowledged and the fourth respondent approved the proposal, though prior to 1998, the establishment of a sugar mill was permissible only under a Letter of Intent or a Licence issued by the fourth respondent. Post 1$98 the Government of India has de-licensed the sugar industry and therefore, persons interested co...
Tag this Judgment!Gurappa Vs. Goudappagouda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ293
B.S. Patil, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.5.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamkhandi in M.V.C. No. 260 of 2004.2. The appellant herein is the husband of deceased Kasturi who is alleged to have suffered fatal injuries in an accident that occurred on 4.12.2002 while she was proceeding on a motor bike bearing registration No. KA 29-2311 as a pillion rider. She succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 5.12.2002. Her husband filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 11,00,000. It was contended before the Tribunal that the rider of the motor cycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and caused the grievous injuries when the motor cycle fell into a ditch.3. Claimant examined himself as PW 1 and one witness by name Fakiragouda Ninganagouda Patil was examined as PW 2. Exhs. P1 to P16 were produced and got marked. No evidence was led...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rathnamma W/O Late Chikkanna and ors. Vs. Sri. K.V. Hanumantha Re ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)AIRKarR417; AIR2009NOC1060.
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiffs in OS No 26 of 1981, on the file of court of Munsiff at Gowribidanur, whose suit though had been decreed as prayed for declaring them to be the persons entitled for a 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property, which the sole defendant had purchased from the husband of first plaintiff, who also acted as guardian of plaintiffs 2 to 6 - minor children i.e. plaintiffs 2 to 5 being daughters and sixth plaintiff being the son - and are entitled for recovery of possession of 2/3rd of the suit schedule property with consequential rights etc., that judgment and decree having been reversed by the lower appellate court in RA No 30 of 1983, on the file of court of Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Chikkaballapur in terms of judgment dated 24-6-2000, which is questioned in this second appeal. The plaintiffs are seeking to get over this judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and for restorati...
Tag this Judgment!Sri S. Gangadhar and ors. Vs. Sri R. Prakash
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2392; 2008(3)KCCR1547; 2008(4)AIRKarR403; 2008(3)ICC781; 2008AIHC2997(Kar)
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree in O.S. No.1068/1997 dated 23.08.2007 passed by the 11th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The respondent was the plaintiff in the suit.2. The plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the plaint, he had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the court below had passed the order on 06.02.1997 directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit schedule property. After service of the notice, the defendants have filed their written statement a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Giriyappa Gowda, Since Dead by Lrs. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2803; 2009(2)KarLJ229; 2008(4)KCCR2715; 2008(5)AIRKarR101
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Land Tribunal, Theertahalli dated 26.12.2002.According to the petitioners who are the legal representatives of the original applicant namely Giriyappa Gowda, land in Sy. No. 44/6 measuring 4.30 acres of Kadegadde Village was owned by one DN Subba Rao, Kolluranna Gowda and Rudraiah as joint owners. Earlier, an application was filed by them on 23.8.1974 in respect of some other properties regarding which the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights after enquiry by its order dated 5.7.1977 in respect of Sy. No. 74 and other survey numbers. Subsequently, after the order of the Land Tribunal, in respect of different survey number the petitioner filed Form 7 which is dated 19.5.1979 which came to be rejected. Hence this petition.2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, counsel representing the respondents and the Government Pleader.According to the petitioners' counsel, in so far as items in second Form 7 filed by...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Akkamma Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3301; 2009(2)KLJ555; 2008(4)KCCR2718; 2008(4)AIRKarR479
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Chikkaballapur at annexure C dated 21.10.19782. However, during pendency of the matter having ascertained the legal position, petitioners are not pressing for quashing of annexures A and B which are dated 25.3.1995 and 16.8.1983 respectively.3. One Venkat Reddy the husband of the petitioner filed Form 7 in respect of property in Sy. No. 120 measuring about 2.00 acres of Poshetty Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk. On the ground that the land in question is a Shanbogh Inamthi land, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner's husband by its order dated 21.10.1978. However, that order could not be challenged by the husband of the petitioner as he expired immediately during 1979. Thereafter, petitioner being the wife of the applicant, filed Form 7 under Section 77. These two applications have been rejected by the competent authority against which, appeal is filed by the petitioner which i...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Hospital Vs. Workman of Bangalore Hospital
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1128]; 2008(6)KarLJ344; (2009)ILLJ661Kant; 2008(5)AIRKarR437
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. An award dated 29th March, 2006 in Reference No. 122 of 1998 is called in question.2. Seven workmen sought for reference of a dispute on the ground that, they were illegally dismissed from service. An enquiry was held against 7 workmen inter alia, on the charge that they had gone on illegal and unjustified strike on 16-10-1995 without giving any notice and had obstructed the loyal employees, patients and their at tenders to get into the hospital and had threatened the employees with dire consequence and because of the strike and threats, the work of the hospital suffered considerably and the patients were put to lot of hardship.3. On the basis of the evidence led by parties, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report, holding that the charges alleged against the 7 workmen are proved. The Disciplinary Authority considering the findings and also the explanation, passed an order of dismissal, against which a reference sought.4. Before the Reference Court, th...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Chaami Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Principal Secret ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2832; 2009(2)KarLJ335; 2008(4)KCCR2703; 2008(4)AIRKarR354; AIR2008NOC2558
ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The petitioner has called into question the notification, dated 15th June, 2007 (Annexure-B) issued by the first respondent and the consequential elections conducted to Madikeri City Municipal Council.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Urban Local Bodies ['U.L.B.s' for short] are constituted on the basis of the population and other factors enumerated in Section 3 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ['the said Act' for short]. Section 11(1) of the said Act states that the Municipal Council shall consist of such number of directly elected councilors specified in column 3 of the table below in respect of municipal areas specified in the corresponding entries in column 2 thereof, namely;------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. Population of the municipal area No. ofNo. Councilors------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 2 3 -----------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »