Karnataka Court March 2011 Judgments

Arati Shivaji Kamble and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(Prayer: These writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 28.10.2009, produced at Annexure-A, passed by 2nd respondent and order dated 28.10.2009, produced at Annexure-B passed by 2nd respondent as illegal and etc.) 1. These writ petitions by persons who claim to have been appointed as Anganawadi workers in terms of Annexure D1 to D7 and like orders issued in favour of the writ petitioners, before this Court, are all aggrieved that notwithstanding such appointment made in their favour, are now faced with the prospect of termination of their so called appointment in the wake of developments as per Annexure-A, communication from the Child Development Project Officer, Raibag, dated 09.10.2009 addressed to the Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child welfare at Belgaum, having been declined by the Deputy Director as per refusal of permission dated 28.10.2009 endorsed on the very communication apprising the Child D...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri. Nanjunda Swamy and Another

Court: Karnataka

(This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 3.4.2009, made in CWC Misc.1/2008 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division II, Chickmagalur as per Annexure-E and to allow the petition filed by the petitioner to set aside the exparte order made in WCA:F:41/07 on 26.4.2007, as per Annexure-C.) The jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1927 (for short ‘the Act’) to set aside an exparte Award, is in question, in this writ petition, which arises out of an order dated 03.04.2009 passed in CWC Misc.1/2008 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Chickmagalur (for short ‘the Commissioner’) 2. 1st respondent filed a claim petition (WCA/F:41/2007) before the Commissioner to Award compensation for the death of his son Puneeth, on account of the fatal injury sustained during the course of employment with...

Rukminibai and Another Vs. Babu and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR1994

(Prayer: This appeal is filed under 100 R/W Order 41 Rule 1 OF CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10/01/2005 passed in R. A. NO.117/99 on the file of The I Additional Civil Judge (SR. DN.), Belgaum, Dismissing the appeal filed against the order dated:08.03.99 passed in FDP NO.27/78 on the file of The II Additional Civil Judge (JR.DN.) Belgaum, allowing the petition for drawing of final decree.) 1. Second appeal by defendants 4 and 5 in a suit for partition which had came to be decreed by a preliminary decree apportioning the shares and during the course of the final decree proceedings for identification and distribution of the properties as per the shares, the 4th and 5th defendants having woken up a little late in the day, by challenging a report of the Commissioner who had been appointed by the Executing Court for dividing the properties in accordance with the respective shares of the members of the family by pointing out that one of the suit items namely residential property ...

S Bhaskar Vs. Enforcement Directorate Foreign Exchange Management Act ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011ILR(Kar)2129; 2011(3)KCCR339(DB)(SC); 2011(4)KantLJ621

RAMESH, J 1. This appeal filed under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (‘the Act’ for short) is directed against the order dated 16.2.2004 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No. 165/2003. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal has allowed the Revision Petition filed by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate against the order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Management Act), Bangalore. 2. The facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal are as follows: On 9.10.2002, the appellant was found in illegal possession of US Dollar 20,000/-. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate after holding an enquiry found the appellant guilty of contravening Section 3(a) of the Act and accordingly passed the order dated 29.01.2003 referred to above by imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant under Section 13(1) of the Act: the penalty of Rs.50,...

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Madikeri-kodagu Rep.by Its Deputy Manage ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.08.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.224/2003 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), MADIKERI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,82,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETTIION TILL DEPOSIT.) 1. This appeal is by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground of liability as well as quantum. 2. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are: On 30.09.2003, when the deceased B.C.Lingaraju @ Kiran was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorbike bearing registration No.KA-12-E-9097, from Banavara to Somwarpet near Doddaboor of Aburkatte, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KA-12-A-5445 came from ...

B. Balachandran Vs. the Tahsildar and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 05.02.01 passed by the Court of the I Addl. District Judge, D.K. Mangalore, in M.A. No.8/10 produced as Annexure-A and the order passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.DVS.4/09-10 dated 04.10.2010 produced as Annexure-B.) 1. In this petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 05.02.11 passed by the I Addl.District Judge, D.K. Mangalore, dismissing M.A.NOS.8/10 filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (‘the Act’ for short). The appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar-Belthangady directing eviction of the petitioner herein from the property bearing Sy.Nos. 173-7A3A1A1P5 measuring 0.14 acre and Sy.No. 173-6D1P1 measuring 0.36 acre situated at Belthangady village and taluk vide order dated 04.10.2010 produced at Annexure-B. 2. The 1st respondent-...

Sri B Jayarama alvA. S/o late B. Nanda alvA. Vs. M/S South Canada dist ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Sri Vijay Chandra Naik, is appointed as amicus curiae.2. Heard.3. The accused in CC No.2342/2005 on the file of the JMFC (V Court), Mangalore is the petitioner herein.4. The case of the complainant as stated in the complaint lodged under Section.200 Cr.PC is that the accused is a member, customer of the complainant's Society. For the purchase of poultry feeds, the accused owed a sum of Rs. 1.87.550/-. To discharge the said debt, m regard to the transaction, he has given a cheque bearing No.457407 dated 6.7.2004. it was drawn on Corporation Bank. Mulki. The cheque was presented on 6.7.2004. it returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, notice on 29.7.2004 wasissued, the legal notice is served on the accused on 27.1.2004. In spite of service of notice, then being no payment, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is filed.5. Presence of the accused is secured, evidence is recorded. PW.J is examined, exhibits P-1 to P-7 are marked. DW 1 is exa...

Dattatraya Vs. Sadashiv and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(This Regular Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated: 10.10.2000 passed in R.A.No.60/99, on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn. Belgaum, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1997 passed in O.S.No.137/92 by the IV Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum.) Second appeal by the plaintiff in OS No.137 of 1992, on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Belgaum, who sued for partition and a share in the two items of suit schedule properties - 1) a piece of agricultural land measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated at Uchagaon village, Belgaum taluk and district and 2) a house property bearing VPC No.416/2, Maruti Galli, Uchagaon - the plaintiff claiming 1/4th share along with the first defendant father, second defendant mother and third defendant brother, the other members of the family, and defendants 4 to 7 being children/legal heirs of one Shankarrao Desai, in whose favour had been executed a sale deed in respect of t...

V.G. Gokhale Vs. the Chief Engineer/Const./East, South Western Railway ...

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR77(SN)

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Sec.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to a fit person be selected as sole arbitrator for arbitrating the controversies/ disputes emerging from the agreement vide Annexure A1 and made his award, etc.) 1. A petition u/S 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a contractor who had undertaken to execute certain works in favour of the respondent Chief Engineer, South Central Railway, and his colleagues in the Railway Department in terms of an agreement dated 20.06.2008. 2. It appears the execution of the work by the contractor was not the satisfaction of the client and the Railways terminated the contract as per notice 05.02.2009 after the same was preceded by a 7 days notice issued on 24.01.2009 and a 48 hours notice issued on 03.02.2009. The contractor responded to the termination, disputing the same as per his communication dated 22.09.2009, copy produced at Annexure-R to the petition and also called upon the re...

K. Nagesh Raikar Since Dead by Lrs. and Others Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi a ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: CRP filed U/s. 115 of CPC, against the order dated 18.11.2010 passed on I.A.No.1, in R.A.89/2009 on the file of the Addl. District, Judge, Shimoga, rejecting the I.A.No. filed U/o. 41 R-3(A) of CPC, r/w. S-5 of Limitation Act.) 1. This revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.11.2010 in R.A.89/09 dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also the appeal. 2. The petition has come up for admission after notice to the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the revision. 4. Heard. 5. From what is urged by the learned counsel on both sides and the observations made in the impugned order, it is seen legal heirs of K. Nagesh preferred an appeal under Section 96, C.P.C. questioning the judgment and decree in O.S.131/03 dated 24.6.2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) and CJM, Shimoga, decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents-Lak...