Karnataka Court July 2011 Judgments

N. Srinivasa Reddy, Bangalore and Others Vs. the Karnataka Land Army C ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notification dated 10.06.1998 vide Annexure-F by the Respondent and etc.,) 1. These petitions are heard and disposed of together as they involve the same issues. The facts briefly stated are as follows: 2. The petitioners are all graduates in Civil Engineering. They had joined the services of the Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited (Hereinafter called the Corporation, for brevity) as Task Force Commanders. They were all initially appointed on a Consolidated Pay and only later were their services regularized. On their services being regularized they were placed on probation for a period of one year. Their names were arranged according to their ranking. The probationary period of service having been declared as satisfactory, they were also granted further promotions. 2.1 The Corporation has prepared seniority lists of Task Force Commanders from time to time wi...

D.T. Sridhar, Shivamogga District Vs. B.K. Sangameshwar, Shivamogga Di ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Misc.Cvl.3206/10 is filed to strike out the pleadings in the Election Petition, which are unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious; and Misc.Cvl.3207/10 is filed to reject the Election Petition.) 1. The first of these applications filed on 15/2/2010 by the 1st respondent is under Sec.87 of the Representation of People’s Act, for short the ‘Act’, read with Order VI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short ‘CPC’, to strike out the pleadings in the Election Petition as unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious, while the second is under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC r/w Sec.87 of the Act to reject the Election Petition as not disclosing a cause of action. 2. Before examining material facts and particulars in the election petition, reference may be made to the relevant provisions of the Act and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, for short ‘Rules’. 3. Sec.83 of the Act provides for contents of Election Petition. Sub-sec.1(a) mandates statement...

Mohammed Abbas and Others Vs. the Government of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Writ Petition Nos. 12987 to 12989/2011 are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notification dated 23.3.2001 issued by the 1st respondent, etc. Misc. W. No.5200/2011 is filed under Section 151 of CPC for vacating the stay order, etc. Writ Petition Nos. 12776/2011 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notification dated 23.3.2001,etc. Misc. W. No.4352/2011, 5303/2011 and 5620/2011 are filed under Section 151 of CPC for vacating the stay order, etc. Writ Petition No. 12829/2011 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notification dated 23.3.2001,etc. Misc. W. No.4353/2011, 5202/2011 are filed under Section 151 of CPC for vacating the stay order, etc. Writ Petition No. 19644/2011 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notification dated 23.3.2001,etc. Writ Petition No. 19645/2011 is filed und...

B. Krishnappa, Bangalore Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalor ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the entire improvement scheme called “Kamakshi lay-out” floated by the respondents under preliminary notification dt.19.11.1977 as per Annexure-A and under final notification dt.21st June 1979 as per Annexure-B, have lapsed for non-execution of the scheme totally and etc.,)1. If at all failures, inability, incompetence, illegalities, steps for inaction, non-implementation of the scheme or a project are all to be found in any given case, the present writ petition combines all such qualities or events exhibited in abundance not only by the delegate of the state government-special land acquisition officer-nominated exclusively to take care of the land acquisition proceedings on behalf of the state government for the benefit of Bangalore Development Authority [BDA], but with all that and even after a sworn affidavit is placed before this court conceding not a simple ...

Gangaramappa, Chikkaballapur Taluk and District Vs. the State of Karna ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dt.18.8.10 passed by the R1 in case No.RASC/ST:30/09-10 as per Ann-C.) 1. Revenue officials in the Karnataka State Government are a law unto themselves, they have absolutely no regard or respect for law, leave alone having the commitment for passing orders in consonance with the statutory provisions. An Asst. Commissioner is a statutory functionary because of his office who is required to function as the first authority to hold an enquiry and to resume the lands which had been granted in favour of persons belong to depressed classes the schedule caste/scheduled tribe communities, if such land had either been sold in violation of the terms of the conditions of the grant before the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short ‘the Act’) coming into force or thereafter apart from the vi...

L. Krishnoji Rao and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(5)KantLJ635

1. Provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the Act’) while have brought misery, hardship, heartburn and what not to those purchasers who are caught within the mischief of Section 4 of the Act and consequential follow up action in terms of Section 5 of the Act, have nevertheless provided some exit routes to some of those chance purchasers who are not caught within the web of this violation of either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. 2. An examination of the transactions in respect of a granted land under the provisions of the Act is confined to two things. Firstly if the transaction was prior to the Act coming into force, as to whether the transaction was in violation of any of the conditions subject to which land had been granted and secondly if the transaction is subsequent to the Act coming into force, not merely such violation but whether it is acco...

Kavitha Mahesh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and Commissioners and O ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Misc Civil 13993 Of 2011 Is Filed Under Section 151 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 R/W Rule 94 Of The Conduct Of Election Rules, 1961 Praying To Direct The Additional District Election Officer, Bangalore (North) Cum Joint Commissioner, Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike, Mahadevapura Zone, Bangalore-560048 Not To Dispose Of/Destroy Any Of The Records And Electronic Records Including Videographs Pertaining To The Election Held To Karnataka Legislative Assembly During The Year 2008 To 151 K.R.Puram Assembly Constituency Without Permission From This Hon’ble Court And Etc.,) 1. Three applications have been filed on behalf of the respondent in Misc Civil No 13993 of 2011, under Section 151 CPC r/w Rule 94 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [for short, the Rules]; Misc Civil No 13994 of 2011, under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC r/w Rule 94 of the Rules and Misc Civil No 13994 of 2011 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC. 2. All applications are suppo...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep by Its Manager and Others Vs. B. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011ILR(Kar)5491

(This MFA is filed under section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 1.2.2010 passed in MVC No.1289/2007 on the file of the III Addl. District Judge, Member, MACT-IV, D.K., Mangalore awarding compensation of Rs. 14,34,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 1.2.2010 in MVC No.1289/2007 on the file of the MACT, Mangalore. MFA No.4039/2010 is filed by the insurer questioning the quantum of compensation whereas MFA No.9351/2010 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Claimants are wife and major children of the deceased who died in a road accident that occurred on 11.5.2007. He was working as a Junior Engineer in New Mangalore Port Trust drawing salary of Rs.20,768/- p.m. and was aged about 57 years at the time of death. The Tribunal, after giving deduction towards the income tax at the rate of 15% and after giving deduction of 1/3rd to...

State by Lokayuktha Police Vs. T. Ramaiah and Another

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by the XXIII Addl. City Civil and S.J., Bangalore, in Spl.C.C.No.152/2007 and direct the trial court to frame charge against the accused and to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.) 1. This criminal Revision Petition is preferred by the Lokayuktha police being aggrieved by the learned trial judge of the court below allowing the application filed by the respondents under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and discharging the accused. 2. Though the submission by the learned counsel for the parties requires to be answered by having regard to the provisions contained in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., it may not be out of place to at least make a passing reference to the facts in a nutshell. 3. The respondents were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the complaint...

Ramesh Desai, Baelgaum and Another Vs. the State of Karnataka by Raich ...

Court: Karnataka Gulbarga

(Prayer: This CRL.P is filed u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the petitioners praying that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to quash entire criminal proceedings including FIR complaint against the petitioners in Spl.C.C.No.7/2011 (Corr) arising out of Raichur Lokayukta P.S. in Crime No.04/2007 for offences P/U/S.7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) P.C. Act, 1988, pending on the file of the Court of the District and Special Judge (PCA) Raichur at Raichur.) 1. The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Arasappa-complainant was working as SDA in the office of Tahsildar at Sindhanoor. There were allegations against him. Petitioner No.1 was the Tahsildar at Sindhanoor for the period in question. The petitioner No.2 was working as FDA in the office of the Tahsildar, Sindhanoor in Establishment Branch. On the report of petitioner No.1, the complainant was deputed to work in Nada kacheri at Jewalagera. The complainant found the posting at Jewalagera is inconvenient. The d...