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.
S.Sunanda Rathan W/O B.V.Rathan Kumar and ors Vs. the Bangalore City C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners' grievance is that the respondent No.2 is not transferring the Khatha to their names in respect of site Nos.768 and 769 of Vajarahalli and Raghuvanahalli Layout, Uttrahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.2. Sri B.P. Muralidhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the similarly placed allotted of the sites are already issued the Khatha certificate. He brings to my notice that the application for the transfer of Khatha is made way back in 2006. There is no justification whatsoever for deferring the consideration of the petitioners' cases. 3. Sri K. Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that the petitioners' cases for the change of Khatha are under the active consideration of the respondent No.2. He submits that the items regarding the release of the remaining sites for the allotment in the layout formed by the respondent No.1 were already placed on the agenda in the second respondent's last meeting...
Laxman Basappa Bhutanal Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. A case has been registered by the Kerur Police against the petitioners in Crime NO. 123/2010 for offences punishable under Section 80. 81 OF KP ACT AND 143, 147, 148. 336, 342. 323. 324, 504. 506. 109. 353. 307 R/W 149 OF IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and in fact they were playing cards but not andar-bahar. Since it was a festival day. the people surrounding the village gathered and they were playing cards not for gambling purpose. As it is stated in the complaint itself about 17 police officials on receiving the credible information that the petitioners were gambling went to the spot and gherowed the said assembly and on enquiry, the police came to know about names and address of each one of them who were about 44 persons and two of the said unlawful assembly escaped and brought about 50-60 people to the spot arid they were armed with stories, clubs etc. those persons, who were arrested were g...
Sri C. Manjunath, S/O J. Chidanandappa, Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner claims to BT the owner of the property bearing door No. 1089/1, Amarapoana Thota, in front of Ananda High School, RMC Road, Davanagere. It is the case of the petitioner that his fame J.Chidanandappa was the owner of the said property. He had gifted the said property in favour of the petitioner as per the gift deed at Annexure '8' dated 21.3.2009. It is further contended that K.C.Vishwanath, the brother of the petitioner had availed certain financial assistance from the second respondent-Bank. The first respondent has passed an order of attachment before judgment of the said property in the case filed by the second respondent in dispute No.DR/DVG/DIS-1/09-10. In the said dispute, the petitioner has filed an application for impleading himself as additional respondent. He has also tiled another 1, application under Section 103 read with Rules 41 and 43 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules for raising the attachment. The said applications have not been consi...
M S Krishna Reddy S/O Late D Sanjeeva Reddy Vs. the Chief Manager Indi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the demand notice produced at Annexure E Lo the writ petition issued under Section 13/2 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short "the Act" for the sake of brevity).2. The relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted in this writ petition. What is impugned is merely a notice under section 13(2) of the Act., Subsequently, since the petitioner has failed to repay the amount, notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act was also issued for taking possession of the properties secured. Thereafter sale notification was issued by the respondent Bank. The petitioner questioned the notice issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) and the sale notification by filing S.A.No.660/ 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. The same came to be dismissed on 11th June 2010. Petitioner filed review petition, the same also came to be dismissed. The petitioner has not a...
Sri K R Prakash S/O Rangaswamaiah and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. The appointments of petitioners were approved and admitted (o salary grant by the orders at Annexure A in 3 and when their request to reckon their past services from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of fixation of salary and other benefits including pensionary benefits, not considered, has resulted in these petitions.2. Learned Counsel for the parties submits that the matter is fully covered by a decision of this Court in W.P.No. 19431/2005 and connected petitions in V.T.S.JEYABAL vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS D.D. 13/10/2006 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court extended the benefit of reckoning the service of teachers from the date of initial appointment in the private educational institution instead of the date of admission of the institution to Grant-in-Aid for pensionary benefits and all other consequential benefits.3. In the Ij.ght of the said decision, these petitions are accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to reckon the petitioners serv...
Sri Panchakshari S/O.Gangaramaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the applicant before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, being aggrieved by the identical order pasBed in Application No.6610/2010 dated 20.10.2010, wherein, the Tribunal has passed identical order declining the prayer for granting stay at the stage of issuing notice to the respondents and has directed that all applications and similar connected applications should be posted after service of notice. Petitioner herein filed application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, being aggrieved by the amendment to C & R Rules and the consequential order of repatriation of the petitioner. An application for stay is filed along with the petition. In all the; applications the Learned Tribunal by order dated 20.10.2010 after considering the contention of the Counsel appearing for the parties observed as follows:-"therefore, at this stage, we decline to grant stay.List these applications and similar connected applications after service of notice."T...
Shri Lal Mahal Limited a Company Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forest Karw ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDERJ.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. The petitioner has moved an application desiring to withdraw the instant writ petition. This prayer made at the hands of the petitioner has been opposed by the State Government, by filing a statement of objections.2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the decision rendered in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil vs. Dr.Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and others (AIR 1987 SC 294) and drew oust pointed attention to the observations recorded in paragraph 36 thereof. Paragraph 36 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents are being extracted hereunder;The allegations made in the petition disclose a lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier universities of India. The petitioner might have moved in his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of the examiners of the Bombay University in one of the highest medical degrees was a matter of public interest. Such state of affairs having been brought to the ...
Shri Rajasekaran S/O Late G Sargunaraj Vs. Sri a B Dange and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDERJ.S.Khchar. C.J. (Oral)1. Mr.A.B.Dange, accused/respondent No. 1, who is present in Court, in person states, that the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by this Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 14/2009, was subject matter of the instant contempt petition. It is submitted by accused/respondent No. 1, that Writ Appeal No.4048/2009 was preferred by the New India Assurance Company against the aforesaid order dated 13.8.2009, and as such, the order dated 13.8.2009 could not be complied with It is, however, pointed out, that the aforesaid writ appeal came to be dismissed by this Court on 2.11.2010, and as such, the New India Assurance Company shall forthwith implement the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by this Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 14/2009. He has also assured this Court, that all monetary benefits due to the complainant/petitioner shall be calculated and released to the complainant /petitioner, or to his counsel, within one month from today.2. In view of the st...
Sri.H.M.Ujjappa Vs. Smt. Rathnamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.6.2010, passed by the Principal District Judge, Shimoga, in Misc.No.3/2008.2. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court has dismissed I.A.No. 1 and consequently the miscellaneous petition. Therefore, this appeal.3(i). Hi brief, the facts are the appellant filed suit in O.S.No.713/90 for declaration. It was dismissed on 19.1.1998. The appellant preferred appeal before the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, in R.A.No.28/1998. It was transferred to District Judge, Shimoga and renumbered as R.A.No.61/2005.(ii) The appellant had engaged the services of Sri.H.Ranganatha Rao, Advocate. He left the profession and went to Bangalore. The file was entrusted to Sri.H.S.Kumaraswamy, Advocate. He appeared on 8.6.2005.He had told the appellant that he would argue the case when the case is taken up and his presence is not required and he would inform the appellant about stages of the case. The appellant believed it and kept quite. (iii) During the las...
Sri D Ekanath. S/O Late T Devoji Rao and anr Vs. the Karnataka Fisheri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. Petitioners when not extended the benefit of extension of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years with effect from 31.7.2008 but from 31.08.2008. was subject matter of W.P. No. 12289/08. whence by order dated 8.2-2010 Annexure E' the order was quashed and the petitioners were held entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years with all consequential benefits.2. The respondent authority issued the communication of even date 31.8.2010 Annexure 'G' and G1' to the petitioners, respectively, calling upon them to file applications for commuting the period of absence from 1.8.2008 to 8.3.2009 and to regularize the leave. Hence this writ petition.3. In the light of the directions issued in the writ petition, more appropriately to continue the petitioners in service by extending them all consequential benefits, it is apparent that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service without any break in service and therefore the respondent employer was not justified in treat...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »