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.
Puttaraju S/O Kikeregowda, and ors Vs. State of KamatakA. and thespl.L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Writ jurisdiction is not meant for examining as to the whether judges in the Executing Court have computed or calculated the interest amount or the award amount to the satisfaction of a decree holder or as indicated by the Advocate for the decree holder. In a matter pending before the Executing Court for executing the award made by the Reference Court on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') enhancing the compensation payable in respect of the land acquired for a public purpose, petitioner claims to be aggrieved that the learned Judge of the Executing Court is not inclined either to accept the memo of calculations as filed by the advocate for the decree holder/the present writ petitioner nor is the learned Judge prepared to disburse the amount as deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer, who being the judgment debtor has himself acceded to or is agreeable to the calculations as worked out by the judgment debtor, d...
Sri M.C.Krishne Gowda Son of Sri Channe Gowda and ors Vs. Sri S.Hanuma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Heard Sri V. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and coursed the writ Detitior. papers.2. Sri M.C.Krishne Gowda instituted suit against the respondents. Along with the suit, I.A was filed seeking an order of temporary injunction. Respondents having entered appearance through their counsel have filed written statement and congested the suit. Issues were framed. Plaintiff having died, his legal representatives have come on record and are prosecuting the suit.3. Defendants filed I.A.No.10 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC 10 vacate the ad-interim order of temporary injunction ordered in the suit on 30.09.2007, to which the legal representatives of the plaintiff filed statement of objections. The trial court has dismissed I.A.No.10 as not surviving for consideration. The observation made in the said order to the effect that "However the said order of ad-interim temporary injunction is not extended time to time.Hence the question of vacating the temporary injunctio...
Smt.S.SumithrA. Vs. Sri.M.Satish Kumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner/wife of the respondent is before this Court under Section 24 of CPC praying for transfer of the case ir-M.C.No.21/2004 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at K.G.F to Principal Family Court at Bangalore.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is permanently Residing at Bangalore and the respondent is also working as a Medical Representative and residing in Bangalore. But, with an Intention of harassing the petitioner, the respondent has filed a divorce petition at K.G.F. He further submits that the petitioner has no means to meet the litigation expenses.3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is permanently residing at K.G.F and she is a Lab Technician and working for B.E.M.L Hospital. He further submits that cross-examination is complete. At this stage, the petitioner has come before this Court for transfer of the case from Kolar to Bangalore city with an intention to harass and delay the disposal of t...
T Sureshbabu Vs. the Deputy General Manager State Bank of Mysore Centr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The communication dated 21.01.2006 Annexure-"K" of the respondent - State Bank of Mysore rejecting the petitioners application for appointment on compassionate basis is called in question in this petition.2. The communication rejecting the petitioner's application reads thus:"2. On examination of the details of assets and liabilities, family pension, etc., furnished by you, we are of the view that the family is not in a destitute condition. We therefore, regret our inability to consider your request for appointment in the Bank on Compassionate Grounds."3. Suffice it to state that the rejection is based on an order which is bereft of details and reasons, much less findings, except conclusions. It is elsewhere said that if an order does not furnish reasons and findings and mere conclusions, tantamount to denial of justice. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. in the result, the petition is allowed. The communication impugned Annexure-"K" is quashed and...
Smt. Jethrutha W/O. Late Sri. Chinnaswamy Vs. the State of Karnataka a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Writ petition by a person, who is complaining that the Special Land Acquisition Officer is disregarding not only the directions issued by the State Government, but also with equal impunity disregarding the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of VYAUKAVAL HOUSE BUILDING CO.OP. SOCIETY v. V. CHANDRAPPA & ORS. Reported in AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT J151.2. However, submission of Sri. Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the writ petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court having observed that such relief be granted to all similarly situated persons, it was the bounden duty of the State Government to have complied with such directions issued by the Supreme Court, and even when the State Government taking note of the directions issued by the Supreme Court had addressed a letter dated 5.2.2009, copy produced at Annexure-A to the petition, the 2nd respondent - Land Acquisition Officer has been very i...
Devi, D/O. Cm. Muniswamy Vs. the Chief Post Master, Bangalore Gpo, and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the applicant in Original Application No.28/2000, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') dated 17.09.2001, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the application of the petitioner herein and directing the respondents to grant the applicant the benefit of promotion under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) scheme with effect from 01.08.1991 and thereafter, under Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) scheme with effect from 01.10.1991, has ordered that for the purpose of payment of arrears, the applicant shall be entitled for the same only for the period starting one year prior to the date of filing of the Original application i.e., from 13.01.2000.2. The petitioner herein filed application before the Tribunal contending that she is entitled to the benefit of promotion under the TBOP scheme with effect from 01.08.1991 and thereafter, under BCR scheme with effect from 01.10.1991 and the same ...
Smt Balkies W/O Late Mohammed Rafeeq Ahmed and ors Vs. K V Srikantha S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. This is tenant's petition against he order dated 4.9.2010 in HRC No.267/2009 on the file of the Judge, Small Causes, Bangalore directing eviction under Section 27(2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Petition is posted for Admission after notice to respondent No.1 who has entered appearance through his counsel. Heard Sri. S.M. Razvi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Tajpeer, learned Counsel for the respondent landlord a. Petition is admitted and is taken up for final disposal by consent. 2. The factual matrix manifest from the case papers reveals that the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 27(2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 against the petitioners on the premise that the petitioners are the tenants under them in respect of shop measuring 8 x 10 ft on a monthly rent of 700/- and in terms of the agreement dated 17.12.1987, it was periodically enhanced and are now liable to pay ?1J26/- per month. That the premise is required by them for their bon...
Smt. Gowramma W/O.Late M C Ramanna and anr Vs. Sri Kempahanumaiah S/O. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.455/1998 or, the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.,) at Kunigal, wherein, they have sought for the relief of declaration that, they are the owners of the plaint schedule properties and for permanent injunction. Respondents 1 to 3, who are the defendants in O.S No.455/1998, have filed O.S No.293/1997 against the petitioners and respondent No.4, seeking the lelef of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property therein. The defendants in the respective suits have filed written statements. The petitioners filed separate applications seeking amendment of the plaint in O.S No.455/1998 and the written statement filed in O.S.No.293/1997. The prayer in the respective applications having been opposed, the trial court by a common order dated 21.07.2010, has rejected the applications with costs. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed these writ petitions.2. Sri P.M.Siddamallappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners conten...