Karnataka Court November 2011 Judgments
Devaraj R, Chitradurga District Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. by It ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
(This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus and direct the respondent No.2 to cause production of the petitioners daughter Sangeetha from the illegal custody of 3rd Respondent and hand over the said detenue to the custody of the petitioner by setting her at liberty from illegal confinement.)This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is by the father for producing his daughter by name Kumari Sangeetha before this Court on the suspicion that his daughter who is a minor, who was studying in Diploma course at the Regional Vocational Training Institute, Hosur Road, Bangalore is not only missing even since she left her parental house in her native village Haleyalnadu from 24.10.2011 but the petitioner also suspects that she may be in the illegal custody of the 3rd respondent one Rangaswamy, also a resident of the same village and who is also working at Bangalore. 2. Notice...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sham Bhat Vs. K. Sitarama Bhat and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Call For Records And Quash The Order Of The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, In Appeal No.453/1988, Dated 16.1.2010, Marked As Annexure – F, By Issue Of A Writ Of Certiorari And Allow This Wp By Directing The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore To Decide Appeal No.453/88 Filed By The Petitioner On Merits And According To Law And Allow This Wp With Costs. H.G. RAMESH, J. (Oral): 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.134/1975 (originally O.S.No.55/1966), has challenged the order dated 16.01.2010 (Annexure-F) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, wherein it has dismissed Appeal No.453 of 1988 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.07.1988 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada. 2. Facts in brief. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid suit for partition. The preliminary decree in the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jineshwar Malleable and Alloys
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arising out of order dated 01.12.2006 passed in final order 2001/2006 in appeal No.523/2004, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein: set aside the final order No.2001/2006 dated 01/12/2006 passed by the cestat, Bangalore in Appeal No.523/2004; and restore the Order-in-appeal No.53/2004 CE dated 23-02-2004 passed by the commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore.) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (hereinafter called the ‘CESTAT’) in Appeal No. Excise/523/2004 dated 1-12-2006 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee has been allowed with consequential benefits. 2. The material facts of the case leading up to this appeal are as follows: The assessee filed an application for refund of Rs.80,161/- on 17-5...
Tag this Judgment!Sanaulla and Another Vs. the Divisional Manager
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 04/06/2007 passed in MVC No.1833/2006 on the file of the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-2), awarding a compensation of Rs.3,28,500/- with the interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.) These two appeals by the claimants and the Corporation are directed against the same judgment and award dated 4th June 2007, passed in M.V.C.No.1833/2006, by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-2), (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. While the claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is unjust, improper and needs to be enhanced, the Corporation has filed the appeal, challenging the liability fastened on it and accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set asid...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Under Secretary to Government (Pri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(Prayer: These writ appeals are filed under Section-4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.7935-7974/2010 (S-RES) dated 08.02.2011.) Vikramajit Sen, Ag.C.J. 1. These Appeals filed by the State of Karnataka assail the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2011, directing the appellants to grant five stagnation increments to the petitioners with effect from 01.04.1996. The learned Single Judge has also directed that this Order should be complied with within three months. Regretfully, there has been no compliance till date, and instead these belated appeals have been preferred. Since the questions raised in this matter are of immense public importance, we think it expedient and prudent to allow the application for condoning the delay of 168 days. 2. The factual matrix may now be summed up succinctly. In December 1980, additional increments to Government servants who had continued in the same posts for more than fifteen y...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Janaki and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep by Its Principal Se ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
(Prayer: These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to determine adequate compensation for the respective acquired lands of the petitioners by the KIADB and pass award in favour of the petitioners expeditiously considering their representations at Annexures A to F respectively. 1. The petitioners’ grievance is that no compensation whatsoever is paid to them on account of the compulsory acquisition of the lands in respect of which they were the occupants. 2. Sri Meghachandra, the learned counsel appearing n behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 have been in cultivation of the lands measuring 1.96 acres in Survey No. 177/1, 2.08 acres in Survey No. 290/1, 3.20 acres in Survey No. 288/2, 2.31 acres in Survey No. 60/2, 3.27 acres in Survey No. 288/2 and 0.93 acres in Survey No. 176/1A, respectively. All these lands are in Ira village of Bantwal Taluk. He brings to my notice the order...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Naik Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
VIKRAMAJI SEN, AG. CJ (Oral): 1. Mr. B. Veerappa, AGA accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. We have heard argument in complete detail and therefore proceed to pronounce Judgment. 2. The fact of the case are that certain land was granted in favour of Kariyappa on 31/05/1965 by means of Grant. One of the covenants in the Grant was that no alienation was permissible for a period of 15 years. However, Kariyappa sold the land in favour of Chandra Naik on 22/10/1974. Therefore the sale, having been executed within this period , would have been rendered non est. This is the mandate of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The original Grantee approached the Assistant Commissioner observed that the transferee namely, Chandra Naik also belonged to a Scheduled Case, and therefore the transaction was valid. However, Rule 29-A of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules,1969 clarifies that a conveyance/ alienation...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Dr. R. Halesha Son of Rangappa and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. Tills Appeal has been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the order of learned Single Judge who has issued a prerogative writ directing that the age of retirement of all Professors/Teachers in all Colleges in the State of Karnataka. regardless of whether they are serving in Central Universities or Educational Institutions directly funding by the Central Government/University Grants Commission should be increased to 65 years. 2. A piquant situation has arisen because two conflicting judgments has been passed by two co-ordinate Single Benches of this Court. The earlier decision emanates from the Circuit Bench at Oulbarga, rejecting the prayer for passing appropriate directions to the State and its Universities and Colleges increasing the age of retirement/superannuation of Professors and Teachers up to the date on which they attain the age of 65 years. The impugned Order which arrives at a diametrically and incompatibly opposite conclusion, has been passed by the learned Singl...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Edu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals are filed under Section-4 of the Karnataka High court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.13449-453/2011, 13454/2011, c/w. 19712-718/2011, 20777/2011, 17650-652/2011, 17661-665/2011, 14269-270/2011, 17667/2011, 17726/2011, 17862-863/2011, 17874-876/2011, 8850/2011, 1229-300/2011, 11910-011/2011, 15005-15/2011, 15052/2011, 15530/2011, 15531-538/2011, 15777-785/2011, 15906/2011, 16004-009/2011, 18003-004/2011, 18364-366/2011, 18834/2011, 19074/2011, 19072-073/2011, 17605/2011, 17604/2011, 16312-316/2011, 15422-423/2011, 16326-332/2011, 16464/2011, 16467/2011, 16626/2011, 16683 and 16685/2011, 16684/2011, 16690-91/2011, 16075/2011, 17302/2011, 17458-463/2011, 17593/2011, 17918-920/2011, 19211/2011, 18302/2009, 20021/2011, 21110/2011 and W.P. Nos. 21548-549/2011, dated 22.06.2011.) VIKRAMAJIT SEN, AG.C.J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the order of learned Single Judge who has issue a prerogative wr...
Tag this Judgment!G.J. Rangaswamy and Another Vs. the Manager, Corporation Bank Hebbalu ...
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
K. Ramanna, President: 1. This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the appellants/complainants not being fully satisfied with the order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the DF, Hassan in Complaint No. 9/2011 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant came to be allowed directing the respondent/OP 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/- within one month, failing which respondents/OPs are liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a till realization. Complaint filed against OP 2 came to be dismissed. Therefore, they have come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2.Along with this appeal an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 65 days supported by an affidavit of appellant No.1 explaining the delay caused. 3.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records. 4. In view of the above said facts, the point that aris...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »