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.
M/S. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Nagrathna @ Bhanu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Notice to respondents is dispensed with since the order to be passed in this writ petition will not affect2. MVC.No.704/2005 was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein praying for certain amount of compensation in respect of death of D.S.Manjunath, the husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 3. The said petition came to be allowed on 3.2.2007 granting certain compensation in favour of the claimants. The Insurance Company-respondent No.3 in MVC. No-704/2005 was placed exparte, inasmuch as it remained absent though served with notice. So also the owner of the vehicle was placed exparte. The Insurance Company filed Misc.Petition No.38/2008 before the MACT, Tumkur, praying for setting aside the exparte judgment and award. The matter is pending consideration since then. This writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the Principal Civil Judge and MACT, Tumkur, to hear and dispose of the application for stay filed Misc.Petition No.38/2008 or in the alternative d...
Sri Shivakumar T Vs. the Secretary Sri Jagadguru Murugaranjendra Vidya ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The endorsement dated 24.9.2010 Annexure 'K' issued by the fourth respondent calling upon the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 to have his grievance redressed deserves to be quashed. f. say so because petitioner when appointed by the first respondent Private Education Institution, as a Lecturer in Kannada in the year 1991 when not paid his wages on par with the wages paid to similarly circumstanced Lecturers in Government and aided institutions, petitioned the of Government under Section 113(2) of the Act for necessary directions to the institution to pay his wages. In that view of the matter, the 4th respondent was not correct in directing the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 130, more so in the absence of any order which ought to be challenged in an appeal.2. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The endorsement Annexure 'K' is quashed. The 4th respondent is directed to proceed with the petitioner's represent...
1munithippaiah S/O Late Chinnaiah and Mariyappa @ Venkaiappa and ors V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The instant writ appeals have been filed to assail the order passed by this Court on 14.07.2009. Whereby. WP No.9373/2007 came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court.2. The operative portion of the order dated 14.07.2009 is being extracted hereunder;"Though the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of N.M.ANNAIAH vs. STATE OF MYSORE reported in 1971 MYSORE LAW JOURNAL (Short Notes) Item No.69 to contend that the Land Acquisition Officer should have issued notice of his award to the petitioners therein under Section 12(2) of the Act and in the absence of the same, the landowner would be deprived of an opportunity to make reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, if he is dis-satisfied with the compensation awarded. It is precisely for this reason that this Court has given liberty to the petitioners to avail remedy under Section 18 of the Act, if they are entitled in la...
Hrhullath S/O. Re Van Nappa and K B Ravindra Kumar and ors Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. (a) Petitioners in W.P.34506-513/2010 except petitioner No 8 when appointed as teachers, while petitioner No.8 as a Second Division Assistant in the respondent-educational institution, their appointments were approved and admitted to grant-in-aid by orders Annexure- A to D and when their representations Annexure-E and F were not considered, led to the filing of these petitions;(b) Petitioners in W.P.34515-518/2010 when appointed as teachers in the respondent educational institution, their appointments were approved and admitted to grant-in-aid by orders Annexure- A and B and when their representations Annexures-C & D were not considered, led to the filing of fehdse petitions; and(c) Petitioners in W. P.34519-521/2010 when appointed as teachers in the respondent-educational institution, their appointments were approved and admitted to grant-in-aid by orders Annexure- A to C and when their representations Annexure-D and E were not considered, have resulted in these petitions;2. L...
Smt. Radha Vs. Sri Jayarama
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Respondent has filed O.S.No. 12/2004 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.,) Channarayapatna, against the petitioner and others, seeking relief for partition and consequential reliefs. Written statement was filed, issues were framed and the petitioner deposed as DW-1 and Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-6 were marked. Ex.D-1 dated 02.11.2002 is an unregistered partition deed, which has three items of agricultural land and the 4th item is a house property. Said document has been marked subject to payment of duty and penalty by the petitioner. The duty and penalty payable has been determined at .8,250/-, which was directed to be collected. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Heard Sri S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Zaheer Ahmed, learned ADDL 1. Govt. advocates who was directed to take notice and assist the court. 3. Undisputedly, the instrument dated 02.11.2002 (Ex.D-1) has been written on a white paper. The said instrument has agricultural and no...
Katti-ma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mysore Minerals Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for referring the matter for adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal by appointing Arbitrator as per clause 21 of the agreement entered into between the parties. Clause 21 reveals that ell disputes, differences arising out of or in connection with the agreement, shall be referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication. In the very clause, the name of the Arbitrator is also mentioned.2. Both the learned Advocates agree for referring the matter for adjudication before the Arbitrator. Even otherwise on perusal of the material, this Court is satisfied that it is a fit case for referring the matter for arbitration before the Sole Arbitrator.3. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-a). The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No.39, M.G. Road, BangaJore-560001, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The learned Arbitrator, on receipt of a co...
Sri.Adinarayanappa S/ O Adimurthappa Vs. Sri.Ramaiah@ Rangaihaniappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. The appellant was the complainant in C.C.No.35817/2002 initiated for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against respondent inter alia contending that complainant laid sold a tractor belonging to his brother to respondent for total consideration of Rs. 1,73,000/-. The respondent had paid advance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- on 10.1.2001, the day on which transaction took place between parties. Thereafter, respondent went on postponing payment of remaining sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Ultimately, respondent in order to discharge balance sale consideration, issued a cheque for a stun of Rs, 1,50,000/- in favour of complainant drawn on Canara Bank, Koramangala Layout Branch,Bangalore. On presentation, cheque was dishonored. The complainant caused a statutory notice to which there was no response from respondent. Therefore, complainant initiated a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.2. Before the trial Court, complainant was examined as PW-1 and the documents filed ...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the Deputy Labour Commi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The termination of services of the third respondent-conductor in the petitioner-Corporation was held to be invalid and directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, however, without back wages by award dated 30.10.2007 in I.D.No.23/2005 before the Principal Labor Court, Bangalore as per Annexure-'B'.2. Sequentially, the petitioner has complied with the award and reinstated the third respondent to report to duty on 24.2.2008 under divisional establishment order dated 26.2.2008.3. In that view of the matter, the proceedings initiated by the third respondent under Payment of Gratuity Act for determination of gratuity must fail and the amount paid to the third respondent as gratuity on termination of service ought to be refunded to the Corporation.4. In the result, petition is allowed. Order dated 19.5.2008 as per Annexure-'D' of the controlling authority under Payment of Wages Act as well as the order dated 28.2.2009 as per Annexure 'E' of the appellate authority are quash...
Sri B L Venkatesh Vs. the Principal Secretary Karnataka Legislature
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner while as a Junior Assistant in the respondent Karnataka Legislature Secretariat was extended a promotion under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules on 10.9.2004. on independent charge basis though he was not entitled to the same since the post was reserved for direct recruitment. The petitioner was later on promoted as Assistant on 22.6.2009 Annexure D' and on the issuance of the seniority list of Assistants Annexure 'E' on 1.1.2010 representations were received by the petitioners seniors pointing out to the anomaly and that they could not be placed below the petitioner in the seniority list. It appears that the petitioner's request for promotion with effect from 10.9.2004 was considered and the official memorandum dated 8.1.2010 Annexure 'G' was issued while the basic pay in the grade of Assistant was fixed at .9,050/- per month by order dated 29.1.2010. Annexure-H The respondent having noticed the mistake committed in the matter of extending promotion to th...
M. Chandra Keerthi Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 4.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.3. The petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.337/2004 seeking partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family properties. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and order dated 11-08-2005. The copy of said judgment has been produced at Annexure-C. The Court below declared that the petitioner is entitled to l/19'h share in the properties bearing S.Nos.43/14 and 43/15. In pursuance of the preliminary decree drawn by the Court, the petitioner requested the revenue authorities to enter his name in the records to the extent of his share granted under the decree of the Court. The cop}/ of his representation has been produced at Annexure-G. The said representation was submitted to the Special Tahsildar - Respondent No.4 on 18-10-2010. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no action has been taken by Respondent No.4 despite t...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »