Karnataka Court December 2011 Judgments

Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managi ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore District, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.7801/2003 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, praying to the pass a judgment and decree against the defendants as under: a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their licensee, nominees, agents, suppliers, dealers, consignees or any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products ‘LIVOLIV-250’ by infringing the plaintiff’s protected patent rights under patent No.186857 of 20th April 1998 granted ‘A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Anthiepatotoxic Composition’ in the market throughout India and etc.) 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing th...

Smt. Asfiya Banu. Vs. Commissioner of Police Bangalore City Bangalore ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2011KAR5813; 2012CriLJ337(NOC)

(Prayer: This WP(HC) Is Filed Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Declare The Detention Of Nawaz @ Nayaz @ Nawab S.O Late Syed Yusuf @ Yusuf @ Sha Nazabuddin By Order No.Crm(4)/Dtn/07/2011 Dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure 'A' And 'C') Passed By Respondent No.1 And Apprived By The Respondent No.2 Dated 19.07.2011 And Further Confirmed By Order Bearing No.Oe 340 Sst 2011 Dated 29.08.2011 As Illegal And Void Abinitio.)1. Writ petitioner is the wife of one Nawaz @ Nayaz @ Nawab who has been detained in the Central Prison, Parapana Agrahara, Bangalore, ever since 19.07.2011 on which date the first respondent the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City has passed an order for preventative detention of the said Nawaz as the detaining authority, as he was of the opinion that he fits into the description of a 'goonda' within the meaning of this word as defined under Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootieggers, Drug Offenders, Gambler...

Smt. Asfiya Banu Vs. Commissioner of Police Bangalore City Bangalorean ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This WP(HC) Is Filed Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Declare The Detention Of Nawaz @ Nayaz @ Nawab S.O Late Syed Yusuf @ Yusuf @ Sha Nazabuddin By Order No.Crm(4)/Dtn/07/2011 Dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure ‘A’ And ‘C’) Passed By Respondent No.1 And Apprived By The Respondent No.2 Dated 19.07.2011 And Further Confirmed By Order Bearing No.Oe 340 Sst 2011 Dated 29.08.2011 As Illegal And Void Abinitio.) 1. Writ petitioner is the wife of one Nawaz @ Nayaz @ Nawab who has been detained in the Central Prison, Parapana Agrahara, Bangalore, ever since 19.07.2011 on which date the first respondent – the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City has passed an order for preventative detention of the said Nawaz as the detaining authority, as he was of the opinion that he fits into the description of a ‘goonda’ within the meaning of this word as defined under Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activ...

Lumbini Gardens Limited, Bangalore. Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangal ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KarLJ334; 2012(1)KantLJ334

1. Statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent-Bank is taken on record.2. In this writ petition, petitioners are calling in question the order dated 30-6-2011 passed in S.A. No. 257 of 2011 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. By the said order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs towards the loan amount due to the respondent-Bank. The 1st installment of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was directed to be paid on or before 7-7-2011 and the 2nd installment of Rs. 40.00 lakhs within a months time thereafter, that is to say, on or before 8-8-2011. The respondent-Bank was directed to defer all further proceedings till further orders. In the event of default in complying with the conditional order, the Tribunal has made it clear that the interim order granted will stand automatically vacated and it would be open to the respondent-Bank to decide the future course of action as they deemed fit.3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits th...

Ram Mohan.B.S. and Another Vs. the Managing Director, Ksrtc, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and award dated: 08/02/2007 passed in MVC No. 2879/2005 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, (SCCH-2), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 8th February 2007, passed in MVC No.2879/2005 by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, (SCCH-2), (for short, ‘Tribunal’)for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 9,67,500/- awarded in favour of the claimants, after deducting contributory negligence at 10% on the part of the deceased, as against their claim for Rs. 95.00 Lakhs, is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants appellants are the parents of the deceased Late Mahesh Koushik B.R.. They filed the ...

Jayantha and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. These petitions are heard and disposed of together by this common order as the issues that arise for consideration are identical. It is the case of the petitioners that they were initially engaged on daily wages in the year 1991 by the second respondent-Mangalore University and had continued till such time they were appointed on temporary basis as peons in the scale of pay 840-1340 as per the official memorandum dated 6-2-1995. This was continued from time to time for over two years. Thereafter, yet another office order was issued dated 10-6-1997 and they were placed on consolidated salary which effected their service conditions in time scale of pay which was converted into consolidated salary. The petitioners being aggrieved filed writ petition in W.P. No. 37787 to 37805 of 1997. Those petitions were disposed of by an order, dated 27-11-1998, issuing certain directions to the second respon...

Ram Mohan.B.S. and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, Ksrtc, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2012KAR2315

(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and award dated: 08/02/2007 passed in MVC No. 2879/2005 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, (SCCH-2), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.)1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 8th February 2007, passed in MVC No.2879/2005 by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, (SCCH-2), (for short, 'Tribunal')for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 9,67,500/- awarded in favour of the claimants, after deducting contributory negligence at 10% on the part of the deceased, as against their claim for Rs. 95.00 Lakhs, is inadequate.2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants appellants are the parents of the deceased Late Mahesh Koushik B.R.. They filed the claim petition...

Gundappa M. Kummur. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KarLJ494; 2012(1)KantLJ494

1. I.A. No. 1 of 2011 is filed by respondent 5 contending that the petitioner herein has questioned the validity and correctness of the communication dated 15-3-2011 issued by respondent 3 and the order dated 3-9-2011 passed by respondent 2 produced at Annexures-J and K respectively, relating to the appointment to the post of Principal in the Pre-University College, Jade, run by the fourth respondent-Management, apart from other directions and other reliefs sought, to the affect that respondents 1 to 3 ought to accord approval to the promotion as alleged to have been granted to the petitioner by the fourth respondent as Principal and to reckon the past services from the date of his initial appointment upto the date of approval with aid and for other consequential benefits.2. This Court had ordered emergent notice on the petition to the respondents and had also passed an interim order directing the fourth respondent not to disturb the petitioner from the post of incharge principal, in c...

Smt. Tulasmma K. and ors. Vs. Jassaram and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KarLJ690(DB); 2012(1)KantLJ690(DB)

1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on the ground that within the period stipulated, the plaintiffs did not pay the deficit Court Fee.2. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge. We cannot find fault with the said order, as sufficient opportunity was granted to the plaintiffs to pay the deficit Court fee. They have not paid the same within time nor have they sought for extension of time, nor appeared in Court and pleaded any difficulty. In those circumstances, the Trial Court had no option except to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. It is against the said decree, this appeal is filed.3. In the appeal, they have paid the Court fee on memorandum of appeal. The Court fee ought to have been paid on the memorandum of plaint. The Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal is Rs.2,58,036.00. The plaintiffs claim that...

Geetha Lakshmi, Mandya District. Vs. the Indian National Congress (i), ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2012KAR18; 2012(1)KCCR178(DB); 2012(1)KantLJ656(DB); 2012(1)KarLJ656

(This Writ Appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P.No.22146/2011 (LB-ELE) dated 29/09/2011.)The appellant herein is assailing the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22146/2011 (LB-ELE). By the said order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. The consequence of such dismissal is that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 14.06.2011 disqualifying the appellant from the membership of the town Panchayath, Nagamangala, under Section 3(1)(a) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (for short the Act, 1987') is upheld, though the learned Single Judge arrives at the conclusion that the disqualification under Section 3(1)(b) would not be attracted.2. Heard Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior counsel for Sri Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Basavaraj, Sri B. Veerappa, Additional Government Advocate and Sri R. Kothwal, res...