Karnataka Court February 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.
Sri Gundappa, S/O Nudalaiah. Vs. the Registrar (Vigilance).
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent to consider his representation vide Annexure-F. The petitioner has arrayed the Registrar (Vigilance). High Court of Karnataka as respondent.2. The representation Annexure-F makes some references to certain events. According to the petitioner, for a single claim, two eases were presented on 19.0P.1991, one before the Civil Judge. Mysore and the other before the Small Causes Court at Mysore. Petitioner has made wild allegations alleging fraud against the plaintiff who has filed the suit. It is also clear from the representation submitted that the said suit was decreed and the same was challenged in Appeal in R.A.No.21/1995 on the File of the I Additional District and Sessions Court. Mysore. It is also clear that an execution proceeding was initiated wherein the property was brought for sale. The petitioner makes allegations stating that the judgments were obtained by illegal methods and hence they are a nullity...
Sri.Eera Sonappa @ Veera Sannappa S/O KrishnappA. Vs. the Divisional M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident that occurred on 14.9.2005.2. Claimant had sought for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. On assessment of the evidence. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1.30.000/. Unsatisfied with the said award, claimant is in appeal.3. No appeal is filed by the insurer nor liability is disputed. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is: Whether the claimant is entitled fur additional compensation?4. n the said accident, claimant has suffered four grievous injuries and he was inpatient from 15.9.2005 to 24.9.2005. Discharge summary shows that claimant has suffered fracture of left humerus and shafts of left radius and ulna, fracture of 4thand 5th ribs. X-ray taken subsequently shows the union of fracture of left humerus and shaft of left radius and ulna. Doctor has assessed 14% disability to the whole body. However, in the cross-examination, he has also admitted that, with thi...
Smt.Anjum Khanum, W/O Late Zameer Khan, and ors. Vs. Sri.Sardar Khan. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. The matter is listed for admission. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. I have heard Sri.J.G.Kumbar. learned counsel for claimant and Sri. C. R. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for insurance company.3. The claimants are the wife and children of deceased Zameer Khan who suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 24.06.2007 and succumbed to injuries on 25.06.2007. This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation.4. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and after going through the records, I find that the Tribunal having accepted that deceased was doing kerosene pump stove repair work, has determined his income at Rs.3,000/- per month The deceased was living in Bangalore City arid he had four dependants to care for and he. was doing kerosene pump stove repair work. Therefore, I determine his income at Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, capitalised loss of dependency would be Rs.5.04,000/- {Rs.3,000 x 12 x...
Hasan Saheb @ Monu. Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.N.S.Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Pleader.2. This Habeas-Corpus petition is filed by the petitioner contending that the son of the petitioner i.e.. Mr. Siraj was arrested by the CCB Police on 14.10.2010 in connection with Crime No.234/2010. However, he was ordered to be released on bail by this Court by order dated 24.1.2011 in Criminal Petition No.5851/2010. Subsequently, he was not released as there was an order for body warrant in S.C.No.700/2010.3. Later, the said body warrant was recalled on 28.01.2011. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that his son was not released by the respondents and therefore he seeks for the intervention of this Court as there is illegal detention of said Siraj by the respondents.4. The oral submissions of Mr.Sampangiramaiah, Government Pleader are taken into consideration. He has furnished information that there is another case pending against the said Siraj in C.C.No.267/201...
Smt. Y.P. Hemamalini Reddy, D/O Late A.S. Yellappa Reddy. Vs. Smt Y.P. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. In this writ petition. petitioner is seeking a direction to the court below to dispose of O.S.No.7976/2008 expeditiously, at any rate within one year.2. The suit O.S.No.7976/2008 is filed for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties.3 It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants-respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein from alienating the suit schedule properly, the Trial Court has not so far passed any order on the said application. It is further contended that one more application under Section 151 CPC is filed praying for a direction to defendant Nos. 1 & 2 to deposit the rents derived from the suit schedule properties. However, no order is passed even in respect of the said application. In this background, it is contended that a direction may be issued to the court below to dispose of these applications and also the suit, ...
Smt V B Vanaja D/O V Bharatkajan. Vs. Government of India Ministry of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by die order passed on Annexure 'M' dated 29.9.2010 in rejecting the interest on refund claim on the ground that, as per Section 244A of the income Tax Act if there' is delay in seeking for refund, the delay period has to be excluded and for the remaining period interest has to be granted and that has not been done by the Assessing Officer i.e.. the Income Tax Officer. Ward No.6(4), Bangalore.2. According to the petitioner, she is a trader in rubber sheet and latex. She is said to have filed returns for the assessment year 1998-1999 during 5.5.2000 and, refund of the excess tax paid was also sought for in the self-assessment filed. Since, there was a delay in filing the self assessment, petitioner wrote to the 2nd respondent requesting to condone the delay and for refund of the amount. Later, the Income Tax Officer has issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish the details seeking for refund. The same was also furnished. Subsequently, notice was s...
S. KrishnA. S/O Shankar. Vs. Joint Secretary. CofeposA. Central Econom ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the detention of his friend Sri. Firoz Khan Q Feroz Khan, S/o. Yusuf Khan, resident of Flat No. 802, Rhine Apartments, Sturrock Road, Falnir. Mangalore- 575001, (hereinafter referred to as Detenue' for short) pursuant to the order of detention No. K.No.673/2010-Cus.VIII dated 25.02.2010 issued by the .Joint Secretary of COFEPOSA, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. Department of Revenue. Ministry of Finance. Delhi, as illegal and void ab initio and to direct release of the detenue- Firoz Khan @ Feroz, S/o. Usui Khan, who has been lodged in Central prison. Bangalore.2) The petitioner has averred that he is a resident of Bangalore City and the detenue is his friend, as such, he is interested in the life, welfare and personal liberty of the detenue. According to the petitioner, the detenue was taken into custody on 27.02.2010 and since then he has been in deien...
Smt.Renukamma, W/O Nagaraja, and ors. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. In these writ petitions, petitioners arc challenging the Circular dated 20.10.2010 issued by the State Government vide Annexure-B. Petitioners are also challenging the communications issued vide Annexures-E, E1 & E2 by the jurisdictional Child Development Project Officers of Sagara, Hosanagara, Thirthahalli respectively.2. All the petitioners arc working cither as Anganawadi Workers or as Anganawadi Helpers in different Tahikas of Shimoga District. Petitioners have all contested for elections held for the Grama Panchayat during May, 2010 and have emerged as successful contestants. They are presently holding the posts of Members of Grama Panchayat of different villages. The Deputy Commissioner has issued Annexure-B - Circular making it clear that the Government of India had earlier as per its letter dated 02.01.1996 had made it clear that the Anganawadi Workers/Helpers rendering their honorary service were entitled to contest for elections to the local bodies. However, by a communica...
V. Nandini D/O Venkatesh, and anr. Vs. the Vice Chancellor Bangalore U ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Since common question of fact and that: of law arises for decision making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order.2. Petitioners, when admit led to the three year degree course in Bachelor of Business Management (BBM) in the 3rd respondent /college during the academic year 2004-05. completed the course, whir-petitioner in W.P.4857/11 was declared failed in one subject in the 2nd Semester and one subject in the 4,h Semester, the petitioner in W.P.4858/1 1 was declared failed in one subject in 4th Semester. The petitioners did not pass in the subjects declared failed, even after 3 years of the completion of the course. The petitioner's request for permission to appear for the said subjects in the examinations, scneduled during March 2011. when rejected by a refusal to accept the examination fee by the respondent/University, has resulted in these petitions.3. Sri Keshav Reddy, learned Stan...
M/S. Sneha Sports and Recreation Association. Vs. State of Karnataka, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1.Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents.2. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner for obtaining license to earn" on lawful recreational activities and functions in the petitioner-Association.3. The case of the petitioner is that it is an association duly registered, with the object of providing recreation facilities to its members. The petitioner-Association, it is urged in the writ petition, is conducting social and entertainment activities such as indoor games like chess, rummy, skill game, coin game, dart game, carom, etc., and also outdoor games and that it is not involved in any illegal activities. It is the further contention of the petitioner that for carrying out these activities, the petitioner is not required to obtain any license from the respondents, much less as required under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act. However, the respondents have been insis...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »