Skip to content

Karnataka Court August 2009 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.

Aug 04 2009

Rakesh K.N. S/O Nagaraja K. Vs. State of Karnataka Department of Highe ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Aug-04-2009

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCR2803

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to select him for admission to Medical discipline (MBBS course) under sports category for the academic year 2009,2. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for admission to medical course under sports category for the year 2009. The petitioner took C.E.T examination conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority, Bangalore and obtained ranking at 5455 in medical discipline (M.B.B.S course) under the sports category. Petitioner is awarded a bronze medal by the Ball Badminton Federation of India recognized by the National Sports Federation and Sports Authority of India, Annexure-C is the certificate produced by the petitioner for having obtained a merit certificate in the 25th (Silver Jubilee) Sub-Junior National Ball Badminton Championship during 2005-2006.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is ranked at 5455 in the merit list under the sports quota, the candidate ranked...


Aug 03 2009

Nagegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Aug-03-2009

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ675

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner successfully had his name recorded in the registers of the respondent-Municipality as the kathedar of immovable property bearing assessment No. 1289 and having applied for, obtained sanction of the building plan followed by its construction. At that stage, the 3rd respondent filed with the Town Municipality objections to the sanction of building plan on the allegation of misrepresentation, which the Town Municipality, referred to its legal advisor who opined that the petitioner was not the true owner of the immovable property in question and as a consequence, by order dated 1-10-2008 Annexure-E suspended the licence and directed the petitioner to demolish the construction within three days therefrom. Thereafterwards by order dated 3-11-2008 Annexure-F, the Town Municipality Council cancelled the licence. Hence this petition.2. Section 188 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), provides for initiation of action in resp...


Aug 03 2009

S.G. Kenchana Gowda and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Aug-03-2009

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ519

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioners in both these petitions are questioning the mutation entry bearing M.R. No. 7/1998-99 which are impugned at Annexures-F and D respectively in both the petitions. The petitioners claim right to the property in question to the land measuring 6 acres and 8 acres in each of the writ petitions. It is in that context, the petitioners in both these petitions claim to be aggrieved by the Mutation Order No. 7/1998-99.2. The contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled to the said property which was the subject-matter of a civil litigation in R.S.A. No. 349 of 1968. Pursuant thereto, the mutation entries were changed to the names of the petitioners viz., 6 acres insofar as petitioners in W.P. No. 19892 of 2009 and 8 acres in respect of petitioners in W.P. No. 19893 of 2009. The said mutation entry was effected by the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar in MR No. 2/1997-98. The petitioners claim that pursuant thereto they have been in enjoyment ...


Aug 03 2009

V.S.T. Tillers Tractors Limited, Being a Company Incorporated Under th ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Aug-03-2009

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is a manufacturer of farm equipment including Tractors and Tillers. The petitioner imported certain parts for the said purpose. The order was placed for the import of 100 sets of Tractor 'E' Mark items from M/s Mercura Trade and Services, B.V. Holland, Netherlands. The said supplier had issued an invoice dated 12.5.1999 and the petitioner had remitted a sum of Dfl 16980 (Dutch Gilders) to the supplier towards the cost of the same. The consignment was booked and shipped under a Bill of Lading issued by M/s Cleve and Zonen. The consignment was to be loaded on board a ship al Rotterdam and the Port of discharge was Chennai, India. M/s Freight System (India) were the agents for the earners. The consignment was covered under a Marine Insurance Policy issued by the National Insurance Company limited, Bangalore, the respondent herein, covering the risk from the ware-house at Rot...


Aug 03 2009

Sri Venkatesh Bhat.a S/O A. Vaman Bhat Vs. Sri Rohidas Shenoy S/O H. U ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Aug-03-2009

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. This appeal is by the complainant in Criminal Case No. 5384/2007 on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short). The appellant-complainant has challenged in this appeal the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.10.2008 passed In the said case acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act' for short).2. Stated in brief the case of the complainant (hereinafter parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court) as alleged in his complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused, is as under:(a) The accused agreed to purchase two shop premises belonging to the complainant bearing D. No. 9-4-62E situate in the ground floor of the building known as 'Best-Co Complex' in Udupi town for a total consideration of Rs. 23,50,000/-. Accor...


Aug 03 2009

Dr. S.J. Rajalakshmi, B.D.S. D/O Late Dr. S. Janardhana Murthy Represe ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Aug-03-2009

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCR3068.

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent to allot her MDS seat in Orthodontics at Government Dental College, Bangalore at Government lees structure of Rs. 20,000/- under the 'Physically Handicapped' quota.2. Petitioner is a Graduate in Bachelor of Dental Surgery at Oxford Dental College. She met with a tragic road accident and became a paraplegic with 75% physical disability with loss of control, both Motor and Sensory of the lower limbs and is certified as Physically disabled.3. Petitioner appeared for the Post Graduate Entrance Test ('P.G.E.T' for short) conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences on 1st February 2009 claiming reservation for Physically Handicapped and also under 2A Category. As per Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'), 3% reservation for 'Physically Handicapped' is provided. However, in the ...


Aug 03 2009

inspector of Customs Headquarters Preventive Unit Vs. Ms. Daphira Wall ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Aug-03-2009

ORDERSubhash B.Adi, J.1. The Customs Department has filed this petition seeking cancellation of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore, for NDPS.2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner-accused No. 2 and another were arrested on 20th February 2009 and seized two separate quantity of Heroin weighing 1056 grams and 1596 grams from the possession of the accused. The accused were produced before the learned Judge on 21.2.2009 and they were remanded to the judicial custody. On 5.5.2009, the accused No. filed an application seeking enlargement on bail on the ground that investigation is not completed within sixty days from the date of Judicial remand and he is entitled for enlargement of bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Judge by his order dated 1.6.2009 considering the fact that prosecution had not produced any material to show that seized material contains narcotic drugs either of commercial quantity or less than commercial quantity, in the circum...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial