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.
Sri Tukra, and ors Vs. the Chairman/ District Tree Authority/Conservat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Sri E.S. Indresh, the learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for Respondents2. In the, writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 8/3/2010 as per Annexure-E' passed by the 1* respondent dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners mainly on the ground of delay.3. In identical circumstances, this Court in W.P. No.25191/ 10 vide order dated 24/8/2010 relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2010 KAR 249. held that the appellate authority is entitled to condone the delay under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act. though statute do not provide for it.4. For the reasons stated in W.P.No.25191/2010 the following order is made.5. The writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 8/3/2010 passed by the 1sl respondent as per Annexure-'E' is...
The Central Sericulture Research and Training Institute. and anr Vs. S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the respondents against the order passed in T.A.No.460/2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter called the tribunal), being aggrieved by the order dated 27.4.2010 wherein the application filed by the respondents herein in these writ petitions have been allowed and the order at Annexure-Al dated 11.1 2007 regarding recovery of the excess Leave Travel Concession (LTC) amount claimed is quashed and the applications are allowed accordingly and respondents in the application are directed not to recover any amount in respect of the applications and if any recovery is made, the same shall be refunded by the authorities.2. The respondents in these writ petitions were in the service of the appellant who belonged to Group A and B service and they were entitled to LTC periodically and they had made application for LTC and they also made an application for travel by air from Mysore to Port Blair and had made an application fo...
Sri.J.Dherendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Smt.V.S.Lakshmi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th September 2010, passed by the XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.4019/2010.2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed I.A.No. 1 and grained injunction restraining the appellant lorn interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondent.3. Aggrieved by that, appellant-defendant has filed this appeal.4 In brief, the facts are the respondent-plaintiff has (lied suit in O.S.No.4019/2010 for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the respondent-plaintiff has filed application for temporary injunction and it has been allowed. Therefore, this appeal.5. The respondent-plaintiff is in possession of the suit 'B' schedule property. The appellant has claimed possession through counter claim. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this appeal and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, the appeal is dis...
Advance Magazine Publishers Vs. Mm Kariappa Vogue Institute of Managem ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10th December 2004, passed in 0.5. No. 2934/1999 by the VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dismissing the suit for injunction etc. the plaintiff has filed the present.2. Parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.3. The plaintiff claims to carry on an international business of publication and distribution of magazines. That the plaintiff is the proprietor of the world famous Trademark .VOGUE", which is in respect of a fashion magazine. The Trademark "VOGUE" has been used in respect of the fashion magazine for more than 100 years since the year 1892. That the plaintiff has wholly1 owned subsidiaries in various countries including United Kingdom, Germany, and France Australia etc. The plaintiff's subsidiaries in these countries also publish related magazines such as VOGUE Living', VOGUE Decoration' etc. By .virtue of the extensive circulation and the excellent quality of the articles published, the plaintif...
B.R.Srinivas S/O B.K.Ramanuja Vs. K.M.Vinaya W/O B.R.Srinivas
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. In these writ petitions the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.09.2010 -Annexure C, the order dated 15.09.2010 - Annexure H and the order dated 15.09.2010 - Annexure J in G and WC No. 106/2004 passed by III Additional Family Court Judge, Bangalore City.2. Petitioner filed G and WC No. 106/2004 against the respondent for custody of the minor child Vathan under Section 25 of me Guardians and Wards Act (for short The Act'). At the time of cross-examination of R.W.I, the learned counsel for the petitioner out some questions relating to the health problem of the minor child.At that time learned counsel for the respondent objected for the questions on the ground that there is no pleading relating to the health of the minor child. The Family Court, upheld the objections raised by learned counsel for the respondent, disallowed the questions under the impugned order dated 04 09.20Hi as per Annexure C.3. Subsequent to the order at Ann...
M/S.Vijaya Sainraj Hotels Pvt.Ltd Vs. the State of Karnataka and the D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The controversy in the present petition pertains to the assessment year 2001- 2002.2. The petitioner herein is admittedly engaged in hotel business and for the year in question, they had submitted their returns declaring their taxable turnover of Rs. 86,17.038/- [Rupees eighty six lakhs seventeen thousand and six thirty eight only]. The respondents issued a notice proposing enhancement of turnover of Rs. 1,99,582/-[Rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand and five hundred eighty two only]. At that stage a revised return was filed submitting books of accounts and the taxable turn over shown at Rs.86,16,833/-[Rupees eighty six lakhs sixteen thousand and eight hundred thirty three only 1. The 2nd respondent increased turn over and confirmed the proposal in the notice by his assessment order dated 8.3.2001. The assessing authority taking into consideration all the payments received as banquet receipts, subjected the same at the higher rate of tax at 10% under Sub-section(a) of Section ...
Srinivas. S/O.VenkatakrishnappA.K.V. and ors Vs. the State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners are the applicants before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ("KAT' for short), being aggrieved by the orders dated 31-1-2007. 14-8-2007 and 27-3-2003 passed by the KAT. filed these writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court2. The common question of law and facts involved in these writ petitions, non-selection for the post of Police Sub-Ins; sectors has been questioned before the KAT. Hence all the matters are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.3. The applicants are working as Police Constables, Head Constables in various Police Stations. They had approached the KAT challenging their non-selection for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioners have contended that the 4lh respondent issued notification dated 28-11-2000 inviting applications for recruitment for the post of 150 Police Sub-Inspectors under the in-service candidates as per Karnataka State Police Service (Recruitment of Police Sub-Inspectors) (Special) Rules, 2000 as &...
M/ S Nava Chaithanya Uurban and Rural Development Society Vs. Jala Sam ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The petitioner entered into agreement dated 05.04.2004 with the respondents for establishing sustainable community based management system for txadlrioziAl tanks to achieve integrated management of land and water resource in the system and in addressing poverty reduction in the Taluk of Shidkgatta. It was agreed between the parties that certain amount will be paid by the respondents to the petitioner for the work done. According to the petitioner, monies payable by the respondents were not paid to him. However, said fact is disputed by the respondents' counsel. Thus, a dispute has arisen between the parties and the same is yet to be resolved.2. The copy of the contract entered into between the parties is produced at Annexure-C to the writ petition. Clause 8.2 of the contract deals with resolving of dispute through sole arbitrator. Since both the parties did Tot agree with the name of sole arbitrator, this petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1...
State of Karnataka Vs. Vyaramudi, S/O. Cheluvaiah and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 12.8.04 passed by the Fast Track -II, Bangalore Rural District. Bangalore acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable U/s 498-A. 304-B and 306 IPC. r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.2. It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 being husband of the deceased - Bhagya, Accused No.2 being brother of Accused No. 1 and Accused No.6 Meena @ Meenakshi being sister-in-law of Accused No. 1 have participated in the marriage negotiations of Accused No. 1 with deceased - Bhagya. At that time, all the accused persons have demanded dowry of Rs.1.00,000 in cash, one Hero Honda Motor Cycle, 25 sovereign of gold from the parents of the deceased, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence U/s 4 of DP Act. It is further alleged that Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6, after the marriage talk, have demanded additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000. Thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence U/Ss.3 an...
irfan Khan, S/O Muqthar Ahmed Vs. Mohammed Rafeeq Hallally, S/O Abdul ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
CONCILIATION ORDER1. The learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and the learned counsel Mr. Vishwanath S.Shettar for respondent No.2 - New India Assurance Company Limited with its Officers are present.2. Negotiations resulted in settlement, whereby the appellant - claimant is willing to receive and respondent No.2 - New India Assurance Company Limited has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand Only), which shall not carry any interest, in addition to what has already been awarded by the Tribunal, In full and final settlement of the claim. A Joint Memo is filed on behalf of the parties to this effect.3. The respondent No.2 - New India Assurance Company Limited has agreed to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal, within Six weeks from the date of preparation of the Award, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of default, till the date of deposit.4. We are satisfied about the terms of the settlement rep...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »