Karnataka Court July 2011 Judgments

Muninarayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(5)KantLJ621

1. While this writ petition only deserves to be dismissed as one without any merit and particularly being in the nature of a frivolous writ petition wherein the writ petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.LND/RUO (A) /17/2004-05, dated 24-6-2010 produced as Annexure-F. (b) Pass any other appropriate order to meet the ends of justice and equity”. on the premise that the petitioner had filed an application for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation to an extent of 1 acre in either Sy.No.82 as is mentioned at four places in Form 50 produced as Annexure-A but rounded of and instead written and Sy.No.66 of Karinayakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, corresponding to column (8) of the application on the premise that though petitioner had filed such application way back in the year 1991 while the application is kept pending and ...

Food Corporation of India Employees Housing Coop Society Limited, Bang ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the orders dt.10.3.11 which are produced as Ann-A to K notice issued by R5 to the above WP. Restrain the respondent authorities from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule immovable properties described in the schedule of WP.) 1. Subject matter of these writ petitions are notices dated 10.3.2011 issued by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, as per Annexures A to K, which are notices purporting to be issued under the provisions of Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) to be precise under 94(3) and Section 39 of the Act. 2. Writ petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following prayer:- “a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Order bearing Nos.NCR/CR/449/10-11 dated 10.3.2011 which are produced as Annexures A to K notice issued by ...

Gangadhara So Late Narayanaswamy. Vs. the State of Karnataka Sanjaynag ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. 2. We have heard Sri N.V.Vijay, learned counsel tor accused and Sri N.S.Sampangiramaiah, learned IICGP for State. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:- PW7-Bhagya is the eider sister of accused. PW7 was given in marriage to deceased Raroesh, After marriage, for some time, PW7, deceased Ramesh and accused were staying in Bommasairdra Village, Gowribidanur Taluk. Thereafter they shifted their residence to a rented house at Nagashevfihaih in Bangalore City. The deceased was not doing any work. The deceased was a drunkard and he was heavily indebted. The deceased used to come home in a drunker', state and harass PW7. The accused was fed up with the activities of deceased. On 08.08.2006 during evening the deceased came home in a drunken state and was abusing PW7. On that day at about 9.30 p.m. or 9.45 p.m., accused a...

H.C. Sathyan and Another Vs. the State by Police Inspector

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(6)KantLJ81; 2011ILR(Kar)4520; 2012(1)KCCR409; 2012CrLJ387

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 11 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 praying to set aside the order dated 2.2.2011 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Cr.No.6/2008.) 1. Interpretation of sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has come up for consideration in this criminal appeal. 2. The facts which have given rise to the aforesaid circumstance are that, a case was registered against the first appellant herein viz., H.C. Sathyan, by the Lokayuktha police, Mysore, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and following a raid conducted by the Lokayuktha police on 27.3.2008, certain records pertaining to immovable assets and movable assets like gold and silver and other household items were noticed by the Lokayuktha police and steps were taken to attach the said properties. 3. An application was filed by the Lokayuktha police for attachment of 19 ...

A. Jayaram, Bangalore and Others Vs. the Principal Secretary to the Go ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These W.Ps are filed praying to hold that there exist fraud and misrepresentation on the part of Respondent-4 society because of role of middlemen, as affirmed by G.V.K. Rao committee’s report specifically concerning the Respondent-4 society as well as consolidated report concerning house building co-operative society in Bangalore. To unduly influence State machinery/Government for unlawful advantage to enable the society carry out commercial dealings in lands to the benefit of bogus members as well as business entities to the utter injury of bonafide interests of the land owners/Petitioners.) This WP is filed praying to quash Ann-A 7 B the Prly. Notification issued under Section 4(1) Land Acquisition Act published in Karnataka Gazette dt.4.1.1985 for the benefit of R4 and also the final declaration issued u/sec. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in RD 197 AQB 82 dt.22.9.1986 and published in Karnataka Gazette dt.25.9.1986 respectively in so far as they relate to the sche...

Kunnappa, Now Rep by at Holalgere Palya Ramanagarara District Vs. the ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KantLJ28

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the second respondent and direct and quash the order dated 10.06.2010 passed by the second respondent in the case (vide Annexure-A) and etc. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the second respondent and quash the order dated 10.06.2010 passed by the second respondent in the case No.RRT/2/CR51/95-96 vide Annexure-A and etc.) 1. Yet another batch of writ petitions before this court questioning the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in terms of the order dated 10.6.2010 [copy at Annexure-A in both the petitions] where under the Special Deputy Commissioner, purporting to exercise his revisional jurisdiction available under section 136[3] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short ‘the Act’] has brought into existence the impugne...

Sri. S.i. Muneer Ahmed Vs. the State of Karnataka, Represented by the ...

Court: Karnataka

AraliNagaraj, J. In this appeal, the plaintiff in O.S.No.55/2000 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Madikeri (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’, for short) has challenged legality and correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 02.02.2006 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the said suit. 2. State in brief, the case of the plaintiff as averred in his plaint is as under: i) Plaintiff has been a trader in timber at Madikeri Town in Kodagu District. Second defendant, viz., the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Madikeri Division, Madikeri, Kodagu District published a Notification in “Udayavani” Kannada daily dated 04.10.1998 in respect of the sale of certain quantities of timber by way of public auction scheduled to be held on 14.10.1998 from 10.00 a.m. onwards at Government Depot. Sampaje Taluk, Madikeri, Kodagu District. In response to the said Notification, the plaintiff participated in the said auction along with other timber merchants in resp...

Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nagesh and Another

Court: Karnataka

(This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated: 26.7.04 passed in MVC No.3193/2000 on the file of the 18th Addl. Judge, MACT-4, Court of small causes, Bangalore (SCCH-4), awarding compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- with interest at 8% P.A. and directing the appellant herein to deposit the same.) H.S. Kempanna, J. Though this appeal had been listed for admission before us with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, it was taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is by the insurer challenging the liability fastened on them on the ground that the risk of the claimant who is a police constable, being a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle involved in the accident, is not covered under the policy of the insurance issued by the appellant u/s.147 of the M.V. Act 1988. 3. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:- The first respondent-claimant instituted claim petition u/s.166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation in respect of the ...

M/S. Instrument Research Associates Pvt. Ltd., Rep by Its Chief Accoun ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012ILR(Kar)159; 2012(1)KantLJ467; 2012(1)KCCR475

(Prayer: This writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 22.1.2011 passed by the R2 at Annexure – J to this Petition; and etc.) 1. Petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2011 Annexure – J of 2nd respondent – Deputy Labour Commissioner and Recovery Officer invoking Section 33(C-1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, determining Rs. 1,87,125/- towards balance of bonus being one month’s wage payable to the workman represented by the 1st respondent-Union, has presented this petition. 2. Facts briefly stated are: Petitioner is the employer while the 1st respondent, the registered Trade Union, espousing the cause of its members who are the employees. Parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 12(3) and 18(3) r/w Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short ‘ID Act’, on 4.8.2008 Annexure- A inter alia providing for payment of bonus of two...

Narasamma Since Dead by Her Grand Children as Her Lrs Vs. the Special ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement vide Ann-A Dt.8.6.2004 by R1 Special D.C. as it is without the authority of Law and contrary to the principles of natural Justice and etc. 1. This writ petition has come up for further orders with the understanding that it may be taken up for disposal as was the tenor of the order passed on 15.6.2011, directing the matter to be listed before the court today after admitting the writ petition by issue of rule and permitting the respondents whether represented through counsel or otherwise to file objections, if any, to the main petition, in the meanwhile. 2. Petitioners are persons claiming as legal heirs of a grantee one Smt. Narasamma-a person belonging to depressed class community in whose favour had been granted an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.11 of Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in the year 1939-40 and such land had been subsequent...