Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. Vs. K. Narasirahaiah, S/ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award 27.5.2005 in Ref.No.53/96 passed by toe Labour Court, Bangalore.2. The respondent, was working as an artisan in the petitioners'* establishment. The respondent remained unauthorisedly absent from 08.08.1993 to 28.08.1993. For this misconduct of unauthorised absence articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and on 22.04.1994 order of penalty dismissing the respondent from service came to be passed. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court by way of reference U/s. 10( 1)(c) of the I.D. Act. In addition to the points of reference, the labour court has framed the following additional issues-a. Whether the II party proves that the disciplinary enquiry conducted against I party was fair and legal?b. Whether the II party is justified in holding the I party guilty of charge?c. Whether the II party is justified in dismissing the I pa...
Tag this Judgment!Sri.V.Venkatesh S/O Sri.Venkataramu. Vs. M/S the Oriental Insurance Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. The matter is listed for admission. Lower, court records are received. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. I have heard Smt.Srividya G.K.. learned counsel for claimant and Sri.K.Suresh. learned counsel for insurance company.3. As a result of accident, the claimant had suffered communited fracture shaft of right femur. He was admitted and treated in KIMS Hospital at Bangalore. He underwent operation for reduction of fracture. As per the evidence of PW.2 - Dr.Somashekar, even after complete treatment, claimant suffers from permanent physical disability and he assessed the disability at 35% to right lower limb and 15% to whole body. The claimant has contended that he s a Mason by occupation and earning Rs.350/- per day however, he has failed to substantiate the same. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1. 62.440/ under following heads:I Pain and sufferingRs.30,000II Loss of amenitiesRs. 15.000III Medical & Incidenta...
Tag this Judgment!K KousalyA. W/O C Krishnan, and ors. Vs. State Rep by Deputy Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. The petitioners are before this court seeking police protection in respect of Site No.9 situated at Kogilu village. Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore, described in the schedule of property of this petition and submission made by learned senior counsel Sri. Krishnan for the petitioners is that, the petitioners have purchased.2. The aforementioned schedule property under a registered sale deed from M/s Sundaram Home Finance Limited and therefore the petitioners are the lawful owners of the said property and as some miscreants are trying to cause some disturbance by making efforts to prevent, the petitioners from going to the said property for the purpose of measuring the area, the petitioners therefore seek the aforesaid relief.3. Learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioners have to approach the civil court for necessary direction.4. Having thus beard both sides and as the petitioners contend that, they are the owners of the schedule property by virtue of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sujatha K W/O Sri R Shashi Kumar. Vs. Smt R Hemavathy W/O Sri Dev ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Petitioner, aggrieved by the order dt. 3/1/2011 allowing plaintiffs LA. under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC in O.S.2752/07 on the file of XXII Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-7), has presented this petition,2. The respondents instituted O.S.2752/07 for partition and separate possession of alleged joint family properties of which item No.2 was Sy.No. 17/1 of Jalahalli. Yashwanthpur, Bangalore North Taluk. The respondents Hied LA. under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead the petitioner and another as proposed defendants 6 and 7 on the premise of having acquired interest in the suit property and therefore necessary parties. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that suit item No.2 fell to the share of 2I!Cl and 5* defendants under a partition dt. 13/8/2001 and the property now belongs to proposed defendant No.6 (petitioner herein). According to the plaintiffs, the petitioner created a document dt. 18/12/2000 in her favour executed by the 2nd defendant, none other than her hus...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabi M Chouta W/O Mohandas ChoutA. Vs. the Asst Registrar of Co-op S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Petitioner having suffered an award for recovery of Rs.2,58.000/- with interest at the instance of the 2nd respondent-Aryapu Vyvasaya Seva Sahaiuiri Bank Ltd., filed appeal No.421/2010 before the Karnataka Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, for short 'KAT invoking Section 105 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, whence by order dt. 24.9.2010 the execution of the award was stayed subject to depositing 40% of the amount within eight weeks failing which the order stands vacated. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner is before court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. This Court on 10.12.2010 granted an interim order as prayed for subject to depositing 25% of the award amount with the 2nd respondent-society within six weeks there from.3. There is non-compliance with the interim order of this Court, as well as that of the KAT.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under sub-clause (2) of Section 105, an appeal against an award for payment of money, sha...
Tag this Judgment!Sri T.V.Chandrappa, S/O VeerappA. Vs. the Commissioner for Food and Ci ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed lo take notice for respondents 1 to 4.2. Petitioner is calling in question the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Davangere District, Davangere, vide Annexure-G and the order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner for Food & Civil Supplies. Bangalore, vide Annexure-H. In fact, the order at Annexure-H is passed on an appeal filed challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, produced at Annexure-G.3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application tor grant of interim stay by the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority, having called for the records, has adjourned the case to 30.10.2010 declining to grant the interim order.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that rejection of die prayer for interim order has resulted in serious prejudice to the interests of the petitioner and therefore, this Court has to interfere in the matter.5. Having heard the learned Counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!M Ananda S/O Mari GowdA.Vs. the Deputy Commissioner Mandya District, a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Writ proceedings are not proper proceedings to verify as to who are all legal heirs of one Channaiah who it appears had been granted certain lands in Sy. Nos. 125 and 126 of Manuganahalli Village. Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk and District.2. Disputes have arisen amongst the persons claiming to be legal heirs as it appears that the said grantee died issue less. It appears there was an attempt made on the part of the petitioner to get the revenue entries mutated in his name through the proceedings before the Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2000 which it appears had been objected to by one Kempamma and the fifth respondent herein. Those proceedings ultimately reached the Deputy Commissioner in revision under section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and it appears the Deputy Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Deputy Tahsildar for de nova enquiry. In the meanwhile, it further transpires that the writ petitioner had earlier come to this court questioning the remand ord...
Tag this Judgment!R.N.Shettytrust, and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka Department of Forest. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states, that the petitioners will be satisfied, if the instant writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the report of the three member committee dated 14.05.2006 (submitted as a consequence of directions issued by this Court on 21.10.2005).2. On the last date of hearing, learned Central Government Standing Counsel representing respondent No.3, invited our attention to an affidavit dated 17.10.2007 sworn to by the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest. Regional Office (Southern Zone). Bangalore, that the Government of India had accepted the recommendations made by the three member committee.3. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 31.01.2011. learned counsel for the remaining respondents were required to obtain instructions, as to whether the instant writ petition should be disposed of. in terms of the report dated 14.05.2006.4. During the course of hearing;, Sri.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 i.e. Karnat...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.R.Geetha, W/O S.G.Pradeep. Vs. Development Karnataka Bank, and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.12.2009 and the proceedings initiated consequent, thereof by the respondent-bank as per the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner has also sought for a declaration that: she cannot be dispossessed by the respondent-bank by exercising powers under Section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules framed there under.2. In paragraph-5 of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that against the order passed by the Magistrate in C.Misc.No. 1884/2009, petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.299/2010 and that the Debts Recovery Tribunal had expressed that it cannot pass an order restoring the position, however it granted an interim order making it clear that no further proceedings either by way of sale or otherwise shall be resorted to by the Bank. In t...
Tag this Judgment!B Sachidananda Rai S/O: M Sankappa Rai. Vs. the Asst. Registrar of Co- ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Petitioner having suffered an award for recovery of Rs.2,04,000/ with interest at the instance of the 2nd respondent-Aryapu Vyvasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., filed appeal No.418/2010 before the Karnataka Co operative Appellate Tribunal, for short 'KAT invoking Section 105 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, whence by order dt. 23.9.2010 the execution of the award was stayed subject to depositing 40% of the amount within eight weeks failing which the order stands vacated. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner is before court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. This Court on 10.12.2010 granted an interim order as prayed for subject to depositing 25% of the award amount with the 2nd respondent society within six weeks there from.3. There is non-compliance with the interim order of this Court as well as that of the KAT.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under sub-clause (2) of Section 105, an appeal against an award for payment of money, shall...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »