Karnataka Court June 2008 Judgments
Sri E. Ram Mohan Chowdry S/O E. Yerappa Vs. the Registrar General, Hig ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant195; 2009(2)KarLJ155; 2008(4)KCCRSN293; 2008(6)AIRKarR156(DB)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying to quash the notification No. RPS. 117/2004 dated 4th June, 2008, issued by the respondent. By the said notification, it was notified that, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Hi9gh Court of Karnataka, has been pleased to order that, sittings of the Hon'ble Judges and Division Courts at the Circuit Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga, will commence on 7.7.2008 and that die cases arising from the Districts named therein, will be heard and decided at the respective Circuit Benches and that the pending cases from the districts concerned, will be transferred to the respective Circuit Bench, before 7.7.2008 and that the filing of new cases at the Circuit Bench will be permitted from 7.7.2008.2. Petitioner, claims to be a resident of Bellary and to have suits and appeals pending in the Courts al Bellary and in die High Court of Karnatka, Bangalore. According to him, the aforesaid notification is opposed to the spirit and e...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. M.S. Hegde Nagare S/O Late Samba Hegde, Vii Addl. City Civil and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ481; 2008(4)KCCR2553; 2008(6)AIRKarR143(DB)
ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners who were the members of the Karnataka State Judicial Service, in the cadre of District Judge and Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) respectively, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification dated 13.05.2008 issued by the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka and for a mandamus to the respondents, to continue them in active service till they complete the age of 60 years and for consequential reliefs.2. The 3rd respondent, Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, had sent a communication to the District Surgeon, Bangalore City, to examine the judicial officers named therein and to furnish immediately, a certificate as to whether, they are medically 0t to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years, for taking further action as per Rule 95-A of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958 (for short 'Rules'). Thereafter, petitioners have received a copy...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Apurv Kumar Mishra S/O Sri Anandee Nath Mishra Vs. National Law Sc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ704; 2008(4)KCCR2199; 2008(6)AIRKarR207
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the communication dated 05.06.2008 vide Annexure-U informing him that he was not eligible to take admission in any of the 7 Law Universities and that his application for admission could be considered only for 2 Universities, viz., Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala; and Chanakya National Law University, Patna. Petitioner has also sought for a declaration that fixation of age limit as 20 years (wrongly mentioned as 21 in the prayer column in the Writ Petition) for admission to the Law Course in the respondent-University as on 01.07.2008 is illegal and unconstitutional.2. The 2nd respondent issued a Notification inviting applications for Common Law Admission Test ('CLAT', for short) for admission to 7 Law Schools in different parts of the country. The CLAT was scheduled on 11.05.2008. The notification discloses the eligibility for taking the test as 10+2 examination or equivalent with not less than 5...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Y.N. Nanjappa, Retired Hal Employee S/O Sri Ningaiah Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant199; 2009(1)KarLJ177; 2008(4)KCCR2527; 2008(6)AIRKarR106
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a senior citizen whose son died in the year 1996 at the age of 20 years in a rood accident at Bangalore. It is stated that after the death of his son in the road accident, the petitioner has been devoting considerable time and effort in espousing public causes relating to road safety, vehicular traffic, traffic discipline and other relevant issues. The petitioner claims that he has filed this writ petition to espouse the public cause relating to road safety and excessive speeding by commercial vehicles within and outside the city limits in the State of Karnataka.2. The immediate provocation for filing the writ petition was Annexure-J Notification dated 29.06.2007 issued by the Government of Karnataka extending the time to fit the vehicles with Speed Governors and specifying that fitting of Speed Governors shall be mandatory only from 01.01.2008. The writ petition was filed challenging Annexure-J Notification and seeking a di...
Tag this Judgment!Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Karnataka State Chie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Kant1; ILR2008KAR4105; 2009(1)KarLJ641; 2008(4)KCCR2357
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner-Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Malleswaram, Bangalore, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:(i) to declare that the petitioner-Society is not a public authority under the provisions of the Right to information Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act'), and the Government Notification dated 22.9.2005 at Annexure-'B' issued by respondent No. 2-Registrar of Co-operative Societies is not applicable to the petitioner-Society, and(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the directions issued by Respondent No. 2 in the letter dated 30.10.2006 bearing No. ADMN/MPH/97/2006-07 at Annexure-'D.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under:It is the case of the Society that in the month of February 1970, the society was registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The society is governed by bye-laws approved b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bojamma and ors. Vs. the Tahsildar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ240
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioners herein pursuant to the compromise decree passed in R.F.A. No. 2013 of 2004, filed an application praying for registration of their names as the owners of the Coffee Estate, under Section 14 of the Coffee Act, 1942. The said application came to be dismissed by the endorsement at Annexure-A, dated 11-1-2008.2. Sri Ravindranath Kamath, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the order/endorsement vide Annexure-A, is without application of mind, inasmuch as the Tahsildar has not conducted the spot inspection to verify the actual facts.Sri Muralidhar, learned Government Advocate, per contra, contends that the revenue records disclose that the property in question is an irrigated land and is assessed to lesser land revenue and that therefore the Tahsildar is justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners.3. The plain reading of Section 14 of the Coffee Act makes it clear that every owner of land planted with c...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanyaswamy Trust (R) Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Princ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3666; 2009(1)KarLJ309
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the order at Annexure-S and consequently, sought for a direction to respondent to waive the conversion charges (fine) in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 125 of Hadhonahalli Village, Thubagere Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.2. The records disclose that the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 125, measuring 2 acres 03 guntas is purchased by the petitioner-Trust through registered sale deed dated 14.6.1999. Copy of the sale deed is produced at Annexure-C. Initially the petitioner had filed application praying to convert 24 guntas of the said agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. When the conversion fine was demanded by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner herein filed appeal No. 504/2000 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The said appeal came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner, for fresh consideration. Thereafter the State Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Smita and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary, Revenue De ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4091; 2009(9)KarLJ169
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 23rd June 1977 vide proceedings No. TNC/T/SR/3 667 /Athani in respect of land bearing survey No. 203 situate at Krishna Kittur Village, Athani Taluk, on the file of the second respondent - Land Tribunal, Athani vide Annexure-G and the Certificate issued in Form No. 10 by the Special Tahsildar, Athani dated 30th November 2004 vide Annexure-N in favour of respondents 3 to 9, have presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the second respondent - Land Tribunal, Athani to reject the application filed by respondents 3 to 9 since the said land is not a tenanted land as on 1st March 1974.2. The grievance of petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, land bearing Sy.No. 203 measuring 09 acres 01 guntas situate at Krishna Kittur Village, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District, originally belonged to one Srimant Chintamanrao @ Madhavarao Patavardhan and he had been cultivati...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Council of Agricultural Research Vs. Vishnu Kalluraya (Since De ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ114
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellant is challenging the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puttur in LAC No. 17 of 1991.2. Two acres 66 cents of land in Sy. No. 259/1 of Kemminje Village, Puttur Taluk, belonging to the claimants was acquired under a preliminary notification dated 29-3-1990 for the benefit of the appellant in order to establish a Cashew Research Centre. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 27-7-1991 determining the market value of the land in question at Rs. 350/- per cent. On the request of the claimants, a reference was sent to the Reference Court. The Reference Court, relying upon Ex. P. 1 and on the ground that the LAO did not step into the witness-box and no oral evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents, enhanced the market value from Rs. 350/- per cent to Rs. 3,200/- per cent. Challenging the said judgment and award, the appellant filed an appeal before this Court in M.F.A. No. 28 of 1994. This Court, after hearing the...
Tag this Judgment!Sauermilch Design and Handles Gmbh, a Company Incorporated and Functio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ276; 2008(4)KCCR2602; 2008(6)AIRKarR136
ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 2.2.2005 passed on IA under Order 37 Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 CPC filed in O.S. No. 6700/2003 pending on the file of the learned XXXI Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-14), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Learned Judge'), granting leave to the respondent-defendants 1 to 3 un-conditionally to defend the said suit.2. the petitioner-company filed the said suit, invoking the provisions of Order 37 of CPC, against the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for recovery of a sum of Euro 757,885.42 which is equivalent to Rs. 3,86,52,885.42 in Indian Currency. The said amount was sought to be recovered by the petitioner-plaintiff from the first defendant-firm, of which the other defendants are the partners. In response to the summons issued in the said suit, the respondent-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 appeared in the said suit and filed an application under Order 37 Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 CPC se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »