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 O. Shivadasan S/O Sri. Ayyappan, Vs. Th E General Manager. Wheel a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. This appeal is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.903/2003 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, being aggrieved by the order dated 8-6-2004 wherein the Tribunal has declined the prayer sought for in the application to quash the impugned communications dated 9-5-2003 and 28-8-2003 with a direction to respondents to treat his service from 4-4-1975 to date as qualifying period of service for all purposes including grant of pension, commutation value of pension, leave salary and other consequential benefits.2. It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed as a casual labourer - Khalasi on 4-4-1975. His services were terminated on 31-12-1984 for medical unfitness. The applicant challenged the said order before the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.290/1988. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 16-2-1990 and ordered for reinstatement of the applicant into service and further directed the r...
A Farooq S/O Late P Abdulla and ors Vs. Smt Yashoda, W/O Lt Raghupathi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. This second appeal is directed against the order dated 22.2.2010 in R.A.71/02 on the file of Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), K.G.F., remanding O.S.40/95 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.),K.G.F., for fresh trial. The appeal is posted for admission after notice to the other side.2. Heard. The appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:Could the power conferred on the appellate court by Rules 23 and 23(a) of Order XLI, C.P.C. be exercised without hearing the appeal on merits merely on the basis on the application filed by the respondent?3. Contextual facts are:a) Appellants herein filed a suit in O.S.40/95 seeking a decree of declaration and possession of XB' schedule property and that the defendant's possession in respect of the said property is illegal, unlawful. They also sought for an order of injunction to restrain the defendant from making any alteration, construction or damaging the property. The defendant entered appearance, but died during trial....
B. Chandrashekar Hebbar S/O Late Lakshminarayana Hebbar Vs. the State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The documents at Annexure-' H','J' and 'L' are called in question in this writ petition.Annexure-1 H' is an intimation issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent to lease the property in question by auctioning the same in public. Pursuant to the said intimation Annexure-'H', the notice dated 20.4.2009 vide Annexure-L' is issued by the 3 respondent under Section 62(4) of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, to the petitioner to hand over possession of the property in question voluntarily in favour of 4th respondent. In the very notice, it is clarified by the 3rd respondent that in case if the petitioner does not hand over the property in favour of 4;h respondent, action will be taken against the petitioner to take the possession of the property in accordance with law. Annexure-T is the Government Order dated 14.7.2008 by which the State Government has ordered that 20% and 5% of the lease/renewal of lease in respect of the properties...
Mr. B.Hanumantharaju S/O Late Hanumaiah Vs. the Government of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner was working as Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology from 1993 to 1998 at Chikmagalur. When the petitioner was in service, it was found, that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,70,048/-. In this regard a police complaint was lodged against the petitioner on 22.05.1999 with the Chikmagalur police and the same came to be registered in crime No. 91/1999. After investigation a charge-sheet is filed in C.C. No. 2560/2004 and the same is pending adjudication.2. In the meanwhile the Legal Metrology department recovered the misappropriated amount from the retrial benefits representation on 08.05.2(K)5 to withdraw the criminal case against him. Reacting to the request of the petitioner second respondent -Legal Metrology department addressed a communication to the first respondent - State Government as per Annexure B dated 03.08.2005. Since no orders are passed by the first respondent -Government, petitioner is before this Court for a writ of mandamus.3. No prejudice will...
K.S. Ganesh S/O Late K E.Subbaohar Vs. Karnataka Legislature Secretari ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Counsel for the petitioners is heard and the petition is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances.2. The facts briefly narrated are, the petitioners were said to be members of the 1st respondent-Society, which is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and that the membership was open exclusively to the employees of the Karnataka. State Legislature Secretariat. The object of the society, inter alia, was to form layouts and allot sites to its members on the basis of seniority of the membership. It is the case of the petitioners, that the society has formed a layout in the First Stage of Laggere, Yeshwanthpur Hobli,Bangalore North Taluk and has also distributed the sites, it has taken up formation of a layout in Sy.Nos.4 to 8 of Gasthi Kempanhalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk as well as in other survey numbers in Kogilu Village and Sy.Nos. 32/P1. 3, 4 and 8 of Agrahara Village. It is the complaint of the petitio...
Praveen Bethapudi. S/O Bethapudi Vs. Savithiamma W/O Govindaraju and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The matter coming on for admission, it is to be noticed that the sale deed in respect of the suit property was executed in favour of a private limited company. The said company is not a party to the suit. Though no issue was framed before the trial Court in this regard, it was raised as a ground in the appeal. As is evident from the narration on the judgment by the lower appellate Court, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is apparent from the cause title and from a perusal of the sale deed, which is produced in Court, that the property was sold in favour of a private limited company of which the appellant might have been the Managing Director. This did not make the suit competent, as it was necessary to file the suit against the company and not against an individual no matter that he was the Managing Director of the Company. The company is an entity, which has purchased the property. Therefore, it is necessary to imp lead the company as a party to the suit. Th...
Sri Vaderaiah S/O Late Patel Hulluraiah Vs. Sri Chand Pasha S/O Late S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. 190/97 filed by the respondents for specific performance of the contract. Suit claim has been contested by filing written statement. In the written statement, the defendants have denied execution of the alleged agreement of sale and the receipt of sale consideration amount.Trial of the suit having been complete, the plaintiffs filed I.A.13 under 0 26 R 10 (A) CPC to refer the document containing the disputed signatures for comparison with the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant. The application was opposed by the petitioners on various grounds. The Trial Court has allowed the application and has referred Ex.P2 for scientific investigation. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed this writ petition.2. Sri C. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that, referring of the signature of the 1st defendant on Ex.P2 alone for comparison with his admitted signatures is irrational. Learned counsel submits that, ...
Sri Babu Reddy S/O Sri Muniyappa Vs. Sri S Chandrashekar Somayaji S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Respondents have filed O.S No.2823/06 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, against the petitioners for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. In view of the written statement filed, issues having been framed, suit was posted for trial. The defendants filed I.A.No.7 to re-open the case and I.A.No.6 to recall PVV-1 for cross-examination. The plaintiffs opposed the prayers in I.As No.6 & 7. The trial court, finding merit in the objections filed and the application being devoid of merit, has passed the impugned order rejecting I.As No.6 & 7.2. Smt Sree Vidya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the rejection of l.As Nc.6 & 7, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is irrational and illegal. Learned counsel submits that, if an opportunity is provided, cross examination of PW-1 will be made and completed within the time allowed by this court. Learned counsel submits that, the just prayer of the petitioners in I.As No.6 & 7 have ...
H M Chandrashekar S/O Late Mahadevappa Vs. Chief Transport Manager Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to consider his representation dated 17.09.2010 as per Annexure F. to renew his license for a period of another two years.2. Sri. G.A.K. Gowda, learned counsel undertakes to file power for respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice that the representation given by the petitioner came to be considered on 27.10.2010 and an order came to be passed rejecting the request of the petitioner. Therefore the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition does not survive for consideration.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the Divisional Controller of the respondent - Corporation by his communication dated 15.10.2010 addressed to respondent No. 1 recommended for shifting of the petitioner's shop from the present place to the new place situated at Unit No. 4. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to give a representation in writing to re...
The New India Assurance Company (Employees). and ors Vs. Sri Rajasekar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. The appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent directing the appellants to sanction and pay the pension.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:The first respondent herein was appointed as a Probationary Inspector on 2 8.12.1983 and before his appointment he was called upon to undergo training by the appellant New India Assurance Company from 18-07-1983 for a period of three months. After the successful completion of the training period, he was selected and appointed vide the appointment order referred to supra and the first respondent reported to the duty on 31-12-1983.3. The second respondent herein introduced a scheme called the General Insurance (Rationalization of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme. 2003 and in terms of Section 15 (c) of the Scheme, the Development Officer had an option to opt for special voluntary retire...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »