Karnataka Court August 2009 Judgments

B. Raghavendra Rao @ Raghu S/O B.S. Rama Rao Through the Next Friend, ...

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This is a claimant's appeal. The claim petition was filed by Sri. B. Raghavendra @ Raghu through his wife Sujatha, as he has become disabled on account of 100% loss of memory due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. On 2.7.1999 at about 12.15 p.m. The claimant was driving his car near palamakalupalle village on Bangarupalayam-Palamner road on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No. KA-02 9229, dashed against his car, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was Immediately shifted to Chittoor Hospital and thereafter to Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. He was there as an in-patient from 2.7.1999 to 19.7.1999. He was shifted from Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore to Bangalore. He was treated by Dr.Ramanarao and also by Dr. B.P. Mruthyunjayanna, a well known Neurologist.2. The claimant was working as an Executive Director in a company known as Vishnu Forge Industries Limited, Bangalor...

Mahendra Labs Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Madanraj Nahar S/O Dhanra ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the communication dated 31.3.2009 issued by second respondent vide Annexure-F and the order passed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-H, dated 6.5.2009 in this writ petition. By the said endorsement and order, the tender of the petitioner is rejected.2. The petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit and is stated to be the manufacturer and supplier of various drugs/medicines for human consumption and veterinary treatments, to the domestic market as well as to various Governmental Institutions, Central and State Governments' Medical Stores, etc. Respondent No. 2-Tender Inviting Authority invited tenders for supply of various veterinary drugs, chemicals and equipments, etc. to the Department of Animal Husbandary and Veterinary Services by issuing tender notification as per Annexure-A to the writ petition on 'Rate Contract' basis. The petitioner is concerned with Item Code Nos. 209 and 252 in this writ petition....

State Public Information Officer and Deputy Registrar (Establishment), ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3890

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates appearing, on behalf of both parties and perused the statement of objections filed by the respondent.2. Petitioner has sought for quashing the order at Annexure-'G' dated 14.5.2008 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission, by which the State Chief Information Commissioner has directed the petitioner to furnish certain records free of cost to the complainant.3. The respondent herein filed an application before the Public Information Officer-Deputy Registrar of High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, for furnishing the certified copies of the following information/documents as per the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:1. Guidelines, rules pertaining to scrutiny of Writ Petition.2. Guidelines, rules pertaining to classification of Writ Petition.3. Guidelines, rules which prescribes to post a Writ Petition only on early hearing application or memo.4. Procedure, guidelines and rules followed when th...

Reddy Veeranna S/O Sanjeevappa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Se ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The reference made in W.P. No. 22564/2005 and W.P. No. 1097/2006 and all these appeals are disposed of by this common order since they are inter-connected and to avoid repetition.2. The learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.6.2008 in W.P. No. 22564/2005 and W.P. No. 1097/2006 has formulated the following questions and referred the same to the Division Bench:Whether the State Government is bereft of power to authorize an authority, or officer subordinate to it to perform the function contemplated under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - notwithstanding the language of Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957?Whether the 'hearing' contemplated under Rule 26(1) of the above Rules, require the State Government alone to hear and decide- without the assistance of any other authority or subordinate officer and if there is a division of such responsibility, the proceedings stand vitiated?3.1. The learned Sing...

Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt. Ltd. Now Represented by Its Director S ...

Court: Karnataka

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Core Issued:1) Whether the renewal of mining lease in favour of the original lease holder, {M/s. Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited} on 3.7.1986 with effect from 25.1.1983 without obtaining prior permission under Section 2 of the FC Act is illegal and void ab-initio and would render the mining lease non-est or whether non-obtaining prior approval for renewal of mining lease in a forest area under Section 2 of the FC Act would only render the renewal voidable and whether the same can be cured by Central Government by passing an ex-post facto order under Section 2 of the FC Act?2) Whether the transfer of mining lease by the original lease holder {M/s .Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited} in favour of the appellant herein suffers from any legal infirmity?3) Whether the in-principle I Stage transfer granted under Section 2 of the FC Act ex-post facto can regularise illegality as of non-obtaining of prior permission under Section 2 of the FC Act before renewal of mining leas...

Good Luck Education Society Rep. by Its Secretary and Vs. State of Kar ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCR2872

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondent to issue Hall tickets to 16 students admitted in the second petitioner institution as per Annexure-D and to permit them to appear for the examinations for the first year D.Ed course commencing from 17.11.2008 and also to declare their results.2. First petitioner is the society which has started second petitioner institution to impart education and training in D.Ed course. It is the case of the petitioners that they made admissions for the academic year 2007-08 for the first year D.Ed course of 16 students. According to the petitioners, as the students admitted to the first year D.Ed course for the year 2007-08 were not permitted to take up the examination, they filed this writ petition and obtained an interim order. Based on the interim order granted on 14.11.2008, 16 students admitted have been permitted to take the examination. In paragraph-3 of the writ petition, except asserting that ...

Smt. Kalaiselvi W/O Srinivasan Vs. Sri B.G. Patil

Court: Karnataka

ORDERSubhash B.Adi, J.1. Petitioner has called in question the order in P.C.R. No. 24121/2005 passed by 12th A.C.M.M., dated 26.10.2005 confirmed by Fast Track Court-IX, Bangalore, in Crl. R.P. No. 628/2005 dated 29.3.2007.2. Petitioner is the complainant. He filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) interalia alleging that, the respondent herein had borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- promising that, he would pay the same within a period of 10 days. When he did not pay the amount, he had issued a cheque drawn on Canara Bank, at Belgaum, on 20.1.2005. The said cheque was presented to the banker of the complainant and the banker of the complainant by its endorsement dated 3.6.2005 returned the cheque interalia informing the complainant that the cheque is not honoured for want of fund (insufficient fund).3. In this regard, on 1.7.2005 complainant issued legal notice by R....

Subbanna S/O Late Rangaiah Vs. State by Banavalu Police Rep. by Spp

Court: Karnataka

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 6/2007 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Mysore, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short), has challenged the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20th November 2007 passed in the said case convicting him for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C.2. Heard the arguments of Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused and Sri. Satish R. Girji, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and also the entire material found in original records obtained from the Trial Court.3. On appreciation of oral evidence of PWs 1 to 14, documents at Ex.P1 to P10 and M.Os. 1 to 12, the Trial Court, convicted the appellant-accused for the said offences and imposed sentence as stated in the impugned order of sentence.4. Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned Counse...

Saraswathi Vs. Ganapathi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4225

N.K. Patil, J.1. The respondents-3 & 4 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the appellant and parents of the deceased. Since the appellant in this appeal does not challenge the apportionment of compensation, notice to respondents 3 & 4 is dispensed with.2. Though this matter is posted for orders today, by consent of both the Learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 22.03.2005 passed in MVC No. 1026/2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge and MACT, Gulbarga (for short 'the Claims Tribunal'). The Claims Tribunal by its Judgment and award, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,66,600/- with interest 6% p.a. The appellant herein claiming that the said amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement, presented the instant appeal.4. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing on both sides and perused the material on record.5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the...

Ashok Kumar Chowan S/O Kundanmal and Vs. A.G. Anwar Ali S/O Abdul Gani ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. Civil Revision Petition is by defendants-2 and 3 before the trial court in the suit filed by R-1 plaintiff. The petitioners are aggrieved by the application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. seeking rejection of trial plaint being dismissed by the trial court2. The facts briefly stated are that R-1 plaintiff filed the suit in question by contending that he was a tenant under the first defendant in respect of the shop premises bearing old No.44 and new No. 267, Old Tharagupete, Bangalore, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- and advance of Rs. 2,10,000/- and was carrying on business in agricultural produce market commodities. When the plaintiff sought repairs to be effected to the shop premises, the first defendant owner refused and this led the plaintiff to file H.R.C. petition before the Small Causes Court in H.R.C. No. 10255/1990 and following the passing of the New Rent Act of 1999, the matter stood transferred to the Rent Controller for adjudic...