Karnataka Court July 2011 Judgments
Govindappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Rural District Doddab ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
(Prayer: These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dt 27.6.08 passed by Respondent No.2 in RA (HO) 10/06-07 at Annexure-E and the order dt 5.4.11 passed by the Respondent No.1 in RP.No.68/08-09 at Annexure-F and etc.) 1. Writ petitions without any rhyme or reason, frivolous writ petitions by persons who have grievance regarding title approach revenue authorities for manipulating the revenue records to their advantage and to the disadvantage of their rivals. 2. The conduct of the revenue authorities is no better and their orders which are more influenced by other considerations, some times may turn out correct also as a person who perhaps is entitled for an order has been able to influence them better than their rivals etc. 3. Be that as it may, the correctness or otherwise of entries in the revenue records do not constitute a fit matter for examination in writ jurisdiction and the examination if at all is only as to th...
Tag this Judgment!Chanabasappa and Another Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
RAMESH, J. 1. The question that requires to be determined in this Revision Petition is as to when the applications under sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are maintainable in law? 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bijapur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’) in LAC Misc.No. 27/2005. BY the impugned order, the Reference Court has dismissed the petitioner’s application dated 04.06.2005 filed under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in Karnataka (for short ‘the Act’). The said application was filed to direct the respondent-L.A.O. to refer the matter to the Reference Court as sought by them in their application dated 17.02.2003 filed before the L.A.O. under Section 28A(3) of the Act. 3. The facts leading to...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Savitha Vs. State of Karnataka Rep by Its Principal Secretary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 30-3-2011 issued by the 3rd respondent produced vide Annexure-A.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The learned Government Pleader has filed stated of objections to contest the petition. Hence, pleadings being complete, the petition is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances, out of turn. 3. The father of the petitioner one S.M. Nanjundaiah was working as a driver with the third respondent. Apart from the petitioner, Nanjundaiah had two other daughters all of whom were married. The petitioner is the youngest of the children. She was married as on 31-3-2002. However, the petitioner’s marriage had broken down and by virtue of divorce proceedings having been initiated before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Kolar, the marriage stood dissolved. The petitioner thereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ranee Govindram Hassanand and Another Vs. the Chief Secretary of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
(Prayer: These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P. Nos.6549-6550/2011 (LA-KIADB) dated 17.03.2011.) 1. These appeals are presented against the learned Single Judge’s order, dated 17.3.2011 passed in W.P. Nos.6549-6550/2011 (LA-KIADB). 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant owned the lands standing at Sy.Nos.44 and 45 measuring 32 acres 37 guntas of Puttenhalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Those lands were compulsorily acquired and the compensation was awarded to the appellant. With the award-amount, the appellant purchased the land measuring 8 acres 18 guntas including 26 guntas of kharab land at Sy.No.46 of Puttenahalli village on 5.8.1985. However, those lands also came to be acquired vide preliminary notification, dated 25.11.1986 and final notification, dated 8.1.1987 for the purpose of maintaining the open space and greenery to control the effects of noi...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director the Campco Ltd., Mangalore Vs. B. Vishnu Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the award dt. 28.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court in IDR No.11/2008 at Ann-A, Directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service and with 50% of backwages; and etc.) The management of CAMPCO Ltd., aggrieved by the award dt. 28.10.2010 in IDR 11/2008 of the Labour Court, D.K. Mangalore, Annexure-A has presented this petition. 2. Undisputed facts briefly stated are: Respondent-employee of the petitioner forwarded a letter of resignation on 3.5.2006 extending a month’s advance notice and on 5.8.2006 addressed a letter withdrawing the said letter of resignation, received by the petitioner on 9.8.2006. Petitioner’s acceptance of the letter of resignation by resolution dt. 21.7.2006, w.e.f. 2.6.2006 of its Executive Committee was neither communicated to the respondent nor was the respondent relieved from service. 3. Petitioner alleging to...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator of M/S. Murudeshwara Foods and Exports Ltd. (In Li ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
(Prayer: The above Application is filed under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w Rule 260 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 praying to summon the respondents 1 to 9 for purpose of examination with regard to the matter specified in the application and etc.) ORDERS ON C.A.397/2011 1. C.A. 616/2006 is filed on 03.07.2006 under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 260 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 against respondents 1 to 9 to declare that respondents are liable to pay jointly or severally to the Official Liquidator the amounts specified therein with interest thereon. This application has abated against respondents 4 and 5 on account of their death. Recording of evidence before Registrar, CPC has already commenced and on various dates evidence of parties has been recorded and a Court Commissioner was also appointed to record the evidence and at that stage official liquidator has filed C.A.397/2011 seeking incorporation of three prayers by way of amendmen...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Khan Shah and Others Vs. State by Central Bureau of Investigati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 24.2.2004 passed by the XXI Addl. C.C. and S.J and Spl. Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Bangalore, in Spl.C.C.No.171/1994 convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences as stated therein.) 1. These two Criminal Appeals are by A-2 to A-5 in the trial court and they call in question their conviction and sentence passed in respect of Sections 120-B and 420 of the I.P.C. 2. Criminal Appeal No.457/2004 is by A-2, A-4 and A-5 and I have heard learned senior counsel Shri C.V. Nagesh for the appellants and learned counsel Shri C.H. Jadhav for the respondent-C.B.I Crl. A.490/2004 is by A-3. 3. The case of the prosecution in short is that, A-2 to A-5 entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-1 (whose case was split up and charge sheet was submitted only against A-2 to A-5) and during March 1991, appellants A-2 to A-5 availed cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- each in respect of 14 unit...
Tag this Judgment!M. Harish Vs. Kum.Sindhu and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
(This RFA filed U/s. 96, R/w order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.10 passed in O.S.No.250/09 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.) This appeal is by the 2nd defendant against the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna, in O.S.No.250/09 dated 6.12.2010. 2. For the sake of Convenience, the parties are referred to in terms of their status before the trial Court, 3. The plaintiffs, represented through their guardian maternal grandmother, filed the suit seeking for partition and separate possession, declaration and mesne profits against the defendants. The 1st defendant who is none other than the father of the plaintiffs, had sold the suit schedule property – Item No.1 in favour the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed dated 5.9.2009 for legal necessities. The matter was contested by the 2nd defendant-purchaser. However, th...
Tag this Judgment!Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Fathimabi and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
(MFA Filed U/S 30 (1) of W.C. Act against the Judgment and order dated: 21.10.2005 passed in WCA:CR-36/2004 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Shimoga, awarding compensation of Rs.4,36,800/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 9.2.2004 till deposit.) Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. The award made by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Shimoga in favour of the respondent is called in question in this appeal by the Insurance Company. 2. The records reveal that the respondent No.1 herein are the legal heirs of deceased Saifulla @ Bablu who was working as autorickshaw driver under 2nd respondent herein in Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-14/4579. While on duty, the deceased Saifulla was waiting for passengers in autorickshaw stand on 9.01.2004 at about 7.30 p.m. Three persons took the vehicle on hire and the vehicle went towards Gajanur side. During transit another person boarded the auto rickshaw. When the auto ricksha...
Tag this Judgment!State by Sidlaghatta Rural Police Station Vs. Muniyappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge – Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Kolar, in S.C.No.51/2004, acquitting respondent No.1/accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 IPC and acquitting respondent No.2/accused No.2 for offences punishable under Section 417 r/w 109 I.P.C.) 1. The State has filed this appeal against acquittal of accused No.1 and 2. Accused No.1 was charged for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of I.P.C. Accused No.2 was charged for offences punishable under Sections 417 r/w 109 I.P.C. 2. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused of aforesaid offences. Therefore, State is before this Court. 3. We have heard Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Advocate for the State and Sri. B.N. Muralidhar, learned counsel for accused. 4. At the outset, we state that accused No.2 was cha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »