Karnataka Court November 2010 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.
Samrat Jun Jayanth and anr Vs. Directorate of Medical Education and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. The Is' petitioner had joined the 2,ul respondent-College for the study of the lsl year MBBS Course for the academic year 2010-2011 pursuant to the allotment of the seat by the CET. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner had joined M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Bangalore (for short 'the MSR College), for the study of the 1st year MBBS Course for the academic year 2010-2011. This seat was allotted by the CET. The petitioners made a request to the Director of Medical Education. Bangalore for mutual transfer of their seats. The Director of Medical Education. Bangalore, by his order dated 23.09.2010 has permitted the 1st petitioner to join the MSR College in place of the 2nd petitioner and the 2,d petitioner was permitted to join the 2nd respondent-College in place of the 1sl petitioner. The order of the Director of Medical Education. Bangalore is at Annexure-C. The MSR College has issued a relieving order dated 9.10.2010 as per Annexure-D whereby the 2nd petitioner wa...
Sri M Padmanabha Vs. the Divisional Controller, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the I Addl. Labor Court, Bangalore, rejecting his prayer for setting aside the order of dismissal and following the rejection of his dispute which was raised by him under section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act r/w Section 2-A of the said Act, he is before this Court.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner in response to the Notification issued by the respondent-KSRTC. Applied for the post of Driver and was selected as a Driver and was issued letter of appointment on 25.7.1987. When verification was done with regard to the educational qualification of the petitioner, it was found that the transfer certificate bearing No. 161/86-87 produced by the petitioner was a fake document. An enquiry was ordered into the said aspect and following the report of the Enquiry Officer, which was accepted by theRespondent - Corporation, order of dismissal was issued on 21.4.2001. This order was called in question before the Labor Court as mentioned abo...
Sri Murthy. S/O Chikka Nanjappa Vs. Sri P.N.Munishamappa and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.). Chickballapur. in O.S.No.306/1997 dismissing the application Oiled by the petitioner seeking to discard the document marked as Ex.P-i3 on the ground that the same was inadmissible in evidence as lie was an unregistered and Insufficiently stamped document.2. The court below has found that as the said document was marked in evidence without any objection being raised by the defendants, it was not open for the petitioner-defendant No.6 to contend that the document has to be discarded.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the document Ex.13-13 is in the nature of a release deed which is written on Rs.5/- stamp paper and therefore it could not have been marked in evidence as the transaction contained therein was required to be evidenced by a registered document. It is his further contention that on 14.07.2003, when the plaintiff filed IA No.7 seeking per...
D.P.Gupta S/O G.S.Gupta Vs. M/S Pisa Greenland Developers Pvt Ltd. and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 16110/1999 dated 28.6.2003 passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge at Mayohall, Bangalore.2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred in terms of their status before the Trial Court.3. The appellant who is the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of 11.35.680/- along with future interest and cost in respect of certain transactions which had been entered into by the plaintiffs with the first defendant.4. According to the plaintiff the first defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act represented by defendants 2 to 7 who are its constituents and beneficiaries with the defendant No. 1. That the defendants had through various advertisements made in newspaper, catalogues, leaflets and pamphlets induced the plaintiff and the public to invest their monies in the scheme of the defendantNo 1-Company called as 'Hillock Farm Land'. That the defendants have ...
Kullaiah S/O Hanumaiah and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. Sri. Dhiraj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occupancy rights granted in favour of the petitioners herein by the majority decision passed by the members of the Tribunal having been challenged by the respondents-land owners in W.P.No.632/2003, this Court by its order dated 15.01,2009 has set aside the said order of granting occupancy rights and has remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made therein. A Copy of the order passed by this Court is placed before this Court.2. The order parsed by the Chairman and other members rejecting the application filed by the petitioners as a mirjoraiy view is called in question in this writ petition.3. In the light of the order already passed by this Court setting aside the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, it goes without saying that the minority view cannot stand independently and the matter needs to be exami...
Trala Electromech Systems Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Arctic Electro Mech Pvt.Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. The request made by the petitioner for recalling P\V-1 to lead further evidence by producing additional documents having been rejected by the trial Court, this writ petition is filed.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the court below. He has filed the suit for recovery of money against the respondent. After the examination-in-chief was completed, PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination. During the course of cross-examination, an application came to be filed by the petitioner seeking to re-open the evidence of PW-1 to adduce further evidence by producing additional documents. The court below has dismissed the said application.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the materials on record.4. The affidavit filed in support of the application does not at all make out any ground for recalling the order passed on 07.08.2009 posting the matter for further evidence of the plaintiff. The only averment made in the affidavit is that the plaint...
State of Karnataka Vs. Mtiyaz Ahammed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. The State has filed this appeal for enhancement of sentence. The respondent/ accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.2. The learned trial judge, on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for the parties held accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304- A IPC and "sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs J ,000/-, in default to undergo SI for three months for an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to undergo SI for six months for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.3. 1 haw heard learned Government Pleader for the appellant/State and learned counsel for the respondent/ accused.4. Learned counsel for respondent/accused, on verification has submitted that respondent/accused has not challenged the judgment of conviction as he was satisfied with the nature of sentence.5. The learned Government Pleader drawing my attention to the judgment of this court in S...
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Central Offices Vs. K.C.N ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner-Corporation calls in question the award of the Additional Labor Court following the respondent herein being directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, without back wages and withholding of five annual increments. 2. The fact in brief are that the respondent was a badly conductor with the petitioner and he was appointed on 13.7.1993 and there afterwards respondent failed to turn up for duty and remained absent, for a long period of time. Ultimately he reported for duty on 1.9.96 and produced the medical fitness certificate but in the meanwhile, petitioner had initiated disciplinary proceedings and Articles of Charge was issued on 17.10.96 which led to enquiry being conducted and pursuant to the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was left with no choice than to dismiss the respondent from his services by the order dated 17.1.2000. The said dismissal order gave raise to respondent raising a dispute before the Additional Labor Court...
Sri. M N Doreswamy S/O.Ninge Gowda and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy. Advocate for the petitioners. Sri.R.G.Kolle. Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed, that the present controversy is squarely covered with the judgment rendered by this Court in Golayya vs. The State of Karnataka and others, W.P.No.80817/2009(GM-MM-S). Decided on 02.06.2009,3. In the light of the above, learned counsel for the respondents states, that if the petitioners produce authentic material before respondent Nos.2 to 6, showing that royalty was paid in respect of the sand being transported (from a licensed quarry owner), from whom the petitioners had purchased the sand, the respondents would refund the royalty charged from the petitioners.4. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to produce material before the concerned respondentNos.2 to 6, depicting that royalty had already been paid by the licensed quarry owner, on the sand which was purchased by ...
Chidananda Shetty Vs. Shekara Poojary Adn ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard, the appeal is admitted arid with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. The brief facta of the case- On 01.01.2007, when the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle beaxing registration No.KA-21/H-9290 along with one Mr. Prakash as ft pillion rider, near the petrol bunk of Belthangady, a jeep bearing registration No.KA-20/M-1815 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motor cycle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT. Mangalore seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.2,63,700/- with interest at6%p.a.5. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liab...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »