Karnataka Court September 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.
Kalu Sanil Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4734; 2008(4)KCCR2804
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following relief:(i) to declare that the provision contained in Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by Act 22 of 2002 (Annexure-Al) is repugnant to the provisions contained under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) and the Oaths Act, 1969; and(ii) to quash the order dated 16.9.2005 made on I.A-IV filed in OS No. 176/1998 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Udupi, at Annexure-A.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the parties to the suit cannot be permitted to file affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief and even if the provision contained in Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC is held to be valid, it is applicable to witnesses and not to the parties to the suit. It is further contended that order 18 Rule 4 of CPC is in direct conflict with Section 6(2) of the Oaths Act as well as the Indian Evidence Act. It...
M.R.K. Transportation Vs. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4845; 2008(4)KCCR2665
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who had participated in a tender invited by the respondents - M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited inviting offers from intending bidders quoting rates for transportation of petroleum products from Devangonthi to various places in and around Bangalore and who is aggrieved that the respondents did not even show the courtesy of examining the bid offered by the petitioner.2. It is complaining that the petitioner has been denied fair opportunity of participation in the tender process, the present writ petition.3. The respondents had been put on notice and are represented by M/s. K Suman & Smt. Sridevi, Advocates who have also filed statement of objections.4. The sole defence which is put forward by the respondents for not considering the offer made by the petitioner is that even in terms of Clause-20 of the tender conditions the petitioner was not eligible for participating in the tender and therefore the respondents are justif...
Prakash Chand Sharma Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagarpalike
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1; 2009(3)KarLJ685; 2009(1)KCCR496; 2009(2)AIRKarR201; AIR2009NOC1360
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us aggrieved by the order dated 30-6-2008 passed in W.P. No. 15117/2006.2.1 The brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellant was a licensee of the space measuring 5'x6' situated at the corner of Kamath Restaurant, Jumma Masjid Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, as per the proceedings of the respondent-Corporation dated 15-2-1988, for 11 months. It is his contention that the licence of shop was renewed from year to year, but during the year 1992, the licence was not renewed at the instigation of Kamath Restaurant. Therefore, the respondent started pressurising the appellant to vacate the place. As the appellant refused to vacate the place, the respondent-Corporation initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Public Premises Act').2.2 A notice was issued by the respondent under Section 4(1) of the Public Premi...
Sri Ramakrishna H.Y. and ors. Vs. the Under Secretary Department of Pa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4725
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In these petitions, petitioners are assailing the correctness of the modified impugned Government order dated 30th March 2007 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, vide Annexure-D and J respectively. Further, petitioners have prayed to pass such other orders in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.2. These petitioners are redressing their grievances stating that, the names of their villages have been selected to provide basic infrastructure at the gross root level under the scheme called 'Suvama Gramodaya Grameen Abhivruddi Yojane. The main aim of the said scheme, includes selection of 1000 villages through the State per year and to develop the said villages by providing basic infrastructures. The villages represented by the petitioners were selected directly in pursuance of the Terms and conditions of the said scheme and as per Government order dated 1.12.2006 and the names the said fo...
Atul Rao Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ634; ILR2008KAR4763; 2008(4)KCCR2580
ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. This petition is filed for the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and Sri. Raghupathi Bhat, sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly from Udupi Constituency are childhood friends. They have been residing in the same locality. Both of them belong to Shivali Brahmin corrynunity. The said Sri. Raghupathi Bhat lodged a complaint on 19th June, 2008 with the jurisdictional police against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 365 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner knew everything about the household and the financial affairs of the complainant. The complainant left his hometown on 11th June, 2008 to Bangalore. His efforts to get in touch with his wife Smt. Padmapriya did not lead him anywhere. On coming to know of the missing of his wife on 13th June, 2008, he came to Udupi. It came to his knowledge on 14t...
Sri Katte Ranganathaswamy Vidhya SamsThe Vs. District Registrar of Soc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR5097; 2009(1)KCCR200; 2009(1)AIRKarR288
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the report submitted by the first respondent dated 31st May 2008 vide Annexure-C, has presented this writ petition.One Sri. D. Mallikarjuna is claiming that, he is the Secretary of the petitioner-Vidhya Samsthe and second respondent is also claiming that he is the Secretary of the petitioner-Vidya Samsthe. Both are claiming that they are real Managing committee and they have submitted a audited accounts and etc. for the financial year 2007 as provided under the relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act, to the District Registrar for approval.2. The jurisdictional Competent authority after thorough verification of the statement of accounts for the financial year 2007 and after conducting enquiry has submitted the report. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance by way of presenting this writ petition seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner a...
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation by Its Divisional Control ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR717::2009(1)AIRKarR285.
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner - Road Transport Corporation, appointed Ramegowda as an Assistant Traffic Inspector, for short 'workman', on 25-07-1977 and dismissed him from service on 17-06-1980, which when referred to the Labour Court, was directed to be reinstated by award dated 1-3-1993, in Reference No. 22/1991. That award when questioned in writ petition, this Court by order dated 1-12-1995 directed the services of the workman to commence as a fresher from 1-3-1993, the date of award. It appears that the workman died on 3-3-1998 whence it was noticed that he was paid Rs. 1,45,479/- in excess of the wages, and when a notice was issued to the 3rd respondent, the widow of the workman, to refund the amount, an application was filed on 11-09-2003 claiming Rs. 1,69,869/- as unpaid gratuity. The Controlling authority having held an enquiry in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act'), allowed the claim by order dated 18...
M.S. Padmarajaiah, Senior Advocate Vs. the Secretary, Department of Fi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR2437; [2009]183TAXMAN209(Kar); 2008(4)KCCR2801; 2008AIHC236(Kar)
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court praying for the following relief:[i] to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the letter bearing No. 5B/5-2/Digs/11 dated 9.11.2005 at Annexure-K; letter bearing No. 7/10/2005-NS.11 dated 27.7.2005, Annexure-L and letter bearing Ho, Sup[2];95/2O05-2006 dated 15.11.2005 at Annexure-M; and[ii] to direct the respondents-1 to 6 to accept a total sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- in his Public Provident Fund (in short, 'P P F Account') No. 0154 at the post office of the 6th respondent during the financial year 2005-2006.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:The petitioner who is a Senior Advocate of the Bar, holding a P P F Account No. 0154 (one of the specified Savings under Section 80-C of Income Tax Act) with the 6th respondent Section 80-C of the Income Tax Act was amended by the Finance Act, 2005 increasing the permissible deduction from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs, 1,00,000/- for the financial year 2005-06...
S. Vijayakumar S/O. Gopal Vs. the Management of State Bank of India Re ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1143; 2008(4)KCCRSN341; 2009(1)AIRKarR486
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner a cashier/teller at Kadugodi Branch of State Bank of India, on 13.07.1991, received cash of Rs. 200/- tendered by Smt. Girija Saranath of Robertson pet for crediting to SB A/c 88 of Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, maintained at Kadugodi branch, representing donation made to the trust, and issued to the depositor, a counterfoil, even dated, on behalf of the Bank, affixing the cash receipt stamp, but did not account the said sum in the bank books of account including the cash receipt scroll for 13.7.1991, which is said to tantamount to misappropriation of the bank's amount for personal gain. The Bank, instituted disciplinary proceedings for the act of misconduct by issuing a charge sheet leading to an enquiry and recording a finding that the charge was proved, followed by an order of dismissal from service, which when questioned by raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the Act, led to an order of the Centr...
Canara Bank, Arsikere Branch Represented by Its Manager and Power of A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)KCCRSN344; AIR2009NOC669; 2009(1)AIRKarR180
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. The appellant, a Nationalised Bank, is the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 299/93 in the Court of Munsiff at Arsikere. The respondents were the defendants in the suit. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question, the correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 20/12/1994 made in RA No. 23/1994 by the Civil Judge at Arsikere, to the extent It has rejected the interest @ 17.5% claimed In the plaint and has ordered for payment of interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the suit, to the date of realisation of the decreetal amount.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in the Judgment, with reference to their ranking in the trial Court/suit.3. Brief facts, relevant for consideration and disposal of this appeal are as hereunder:a) O.S. No. 299/93 was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,632/- with current and future interest @ 17.5% p.a., compounded with half yearly rests and costs. According to the averments made I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›