Karnataka Court January 2011 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.
L.T Nagappa S/O Doddathimmaiah. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Comm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. Writ petition by a person who has purchased an agricultural land in the year 199L which had been originally granted by the revenue authorities in terms of grant order dated 30-5-1944 and in favor of fourth respondent, who belongs to scheduled caste community.2. By the time the transaction took place, the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act. 1978 [for short, the Act] having come into force, if a transaction of this nature is to be valid has to be preceded by a permission granted by the government in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act.3. In the instant case, such permission, admittedly, having not been obtained, it was inevitable for the authorities under the Act - Assistant Commissioner in the first instance and Deputy Commissioner as appellate authority, only to annul the sale transaction and to restore the land in favor of the grantee. It is aggrieved by these orders, the present writ petition.4. Appearing f...
Sri Babu Reddy S/O Gururmurthy Reddy. Vs. Smt. Lakshmamma W/O Late Mun ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. Writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising his appellate power setting aside certain phodi proceedings taken by the second respondent - The Technical Assistant - Land Survey - In charge Deputy Director of Land Records at the instance of the petitioner but in an appeal preferred by the first respondent, that having been set aside and that too as submitted by Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, without notice to the petitioner the impugned order is not sustainable in law, has to be set aside etc.,.2. Submission of Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the order recites notice had been issued, in fact, the petitioner never received any notice and therefore the order is one in violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained etc...3. Proceedings in the nature of phoding which is one for resurveying the land and dividing the existing survey number is only for prope...
N.Lokesh, S/O Nanjundappa N. Vs. M. Mahadevappa, S/O C.Madaiah, and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4.2. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.11.2010 passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, vide Annexure-Q, whereby authorization to run a Fair Price Shop is given to respondent No. l by canceling the authorization given in to the petitioner herein.3. Admittedly, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 18.12.2010 along with an application seeking interim stay.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate authority has not taken up the matter for consideration of the application filed for interim stay. As a result, petitioner contends that he is left, with no remedy except to approach this Court seeking to quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, or in the alternative for a direction to respondent No.2 Appellate Authority to consider the application filed for stay and pass appropriate orders.5. Learned Government Pleader submits that the ...
Smt. a Ruth W/O. BenjamIn Shekar. Vs. Smt. a Ruth W/O. BenjamIn Shekar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 29.09.2005 in reference No. 27/2001 passed by the labour Court at Bangalore as per Annexure F "ejecting the reference.2. Petitioner contends that she was appointed by the respondent - Mahila Seva Samaja on 09.06.1989 as Assistant on a monthly salary of Rs.200/- and the working hours was between 01.00 PM and 05.30 PM. After a lapse of nearly 9 years the petitioner was put on probation as per Annexure B dated 23.03.1998 for a period of one year in the pay scale of Rs.700-1500. After the expiry of one year's probationary period the same was extended for another period of 6 months as per Annexure D dated 30.06.1999. Before the expiry of 6 months extended probationary period the respondent school gave the benefit of revision of pay scale to the petitioner from Rs.1200-2090 as per Annexure C dated 14.07.1999. On completion of the extended period 6 months probationary period reli...
C.Z.Muzamil Pasha, S/O C.K Zaheer Ahmed. Vs. the Deputy Inspector Gene ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to respondent Nos. i to 2 to consider his representation vide Annexures-A & B and redress his grievance.3. According to the petitioner under an agreement for sale, he has agreed to purchase from respondent No.4, a site situated in Lakshmeesha Nagara at Chikmagalur District. As the respondent No.4 failed to execute the sale deed, petitioner claims to have instituted a suit in O.S.No.502/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chickmagalur, seeking specific performance of the contract for sale dated 10.09.2009.4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that during the pendency of the said suit, at the instance of the respondent WP 4 1663/2010 No.4, respondent No.3 - Circle Inspector of Police, Chikmagalur Town, is harassing the petitioner by calling him to the police station and directing him to produce the original documents pert...
Doddabasavaraj S. Patil S/O Somana Gowda Patil, and anr. Vs. Governmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. Though the writ petition is filed by two petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners today seeks permission to restrict the petition in respect of 1st petitioner only. Permission is granted. Thus 2nd petitioner's petition stands dismissed as not pressed.2. Petitioner has sought for quashing the Memorandum dated 12th March 2010 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-' C as also the Selection List vide Annexure- J By filing this writ petition.3. The records reveal the petitioner filed an application pursuant to the Notification issued by Sri Valmiki Gurukulashrama, Allipura, Bellary - educational institution for being appointed as a Science Teacher. So also, the T respondent applied to the said post along with others. The 7th respondent is selected and consequently, the petitioner and others are not selected. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.4.Sri Valmiki Gumkula shrama is running 3 school in the name and style of Sri Kampilaraya Girijana ...
M.T.B. Naik S/O Meetya Naik. Vs. Pragathi Grameena Bank.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the orders at Annexures-K and L, dated 20.6.2007 and 28.2.2007 respectively, by which the petitioner's prayer to assign proper seniority in the seniority list is rejected. The records reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Trainee Clerk as per Annexure-R1, dated 8.2.1984. The training will commence from the date of the petitioner reporting for training. Ultimately he joined as trainee on 17.2.1984. Therefore in effect, the petitioner is appointed as Trainee on 17.2.1984. The petitioner could not successfully complete the training and therefore the period of the petitioner was extended during the course of training, a notification came to be issued by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) as per Annexure-R2, dated 16.8.1984.The relevant, portion of which reads thus:- In order, therefore, to bring uniformity in the system, it has been decided, in consultation with the Government of India, that hereinafter the training...
Chikkavenkatarayappa Alias Chikkavenkatappa S/O Munishamappa, and ors. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. Writ proceedings under Article227 of the Constitution of India is neither appropriate nor suitable proceedings to examine the validity of revenue entries being mutated in the name of one or other party by the revenue authorities.2. It is the legendary reputation of the revenue authorities being most corrupt and liable, keep tinkering with the revenue entries. This is a malady which is to be taken note by legislature for suitable legislative measure to keep a check on the misuse of and abuse of power by statutory revenue functionaries exercising power under the provisions of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the Act].3. This Act is the successor to Mysore Revenue Code and the Code itself is a legacy of the British colonial rule. During the colonial rule of the British, land was plenty and revenue was meagre and revenue authorities were encouraging people to take illustrative and keep granting government lands including forest lands in favour of private persons for cult...
Smt. Chandravathi D.KarkerA. Vs Shree Dev Transports Prop. M.S.Gandhi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of judgment and award in M.V.C.No.858/2007 dated 30th May 2008 on the file of M.A.C.T... Udupi.2. Claimant suffered an Injury in a road accident that occurred on 6.6.2007 at about 06:15 hours. It is alleged that she was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KA-09/M-9469 from Udupi towards Yermal. When the bus reached near Pangala bridge on N.H. 17 of Uligargoli village, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, it collided with the another bus bearing No. KA- 19/B-6156, as a result of which, the claimant suffered grievous injury and admitted to the hospital.3. The claim petition was resisted by the insurer. However, the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence found that the claimant has established the accident and has also established that the actionable negligence on the part of the respondent - driver and further held that the claimant is entitled for compensation.4. Insofar ...
The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority, and anr. Vs. T Gopal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. A Preliminary Notification for acquiring land, including the lands of the; respondents, was issued on 24.02.1977. A final Notification for acquisition came to be issued thereafter on 02.08.1978. Consequent upon the acquisition of the lands, the Land Acquisition Collector rendered various awards for payment of compensation to the land-owners (including awards dated 26.02.1980. 25.05.1982 and 19.05. 1989).2. The respondents filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Land Acquisition Collector, seeking enhancement of compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector, however, did not refer the applications filed by the respondents to the Reference Court. It is therefore, that the respondents approached the Reference Court directly by moving applications under Section I8(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. The said applications filed by the respondents were however dismissed purely on the basis of having been filed beyond the period of limitation.3...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »