Karnataka Court August 2011 Judgments
Obalappa Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs. K.V. Lakshmana and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner Tarikere in case No.Sc/St 11/2003-04 dated 16-12-2004 vide Annexure-E and the order passed by the deputy Commissioner. Chikkamagalur in case No.Ptl/09-05-06 dated 7.12.2009 Annexure f. 1. Writ petition by purchaser of a granted land measuring 4 acres 34 guntas in Sy No 58 of Hanumapura village, Birur hobli, Kadur taluk, Chikkamagalur district, claiming right, title and interest in this land under a sale transaction dated 1-6-1993, executed by respondents 5 and 6 – sons of K N Nanjundappa. 2. Subject land had been sold to the father of the petitioner by respondents 5 and 6, who in turn acquired right, title and interest to the land under an earlier sale transaction dated 28-6-1991 executed by the first respondent, who had claimed to be adopted son of one Chikkathimmaiah [Chinnathimmaiah] and the said Chikkathimmaiah had got the land ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri M. Vijaya Kumar. Son of M. Venkatramana Bhat and ors. Vs. Smt. Sar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral): 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such, hr may be permitted to withdraw the instant: writ petitions, so 1.4 as to enable him to assail the impugned order in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Dismissed as with drawn with liberties aforementioned. Needless to mention, that it shall be open to the petitioner herein to seek condo nation of delay for the period during which the instant writ petitions remained pending before this Court. 3. In view of the dismissal of the main matters Misc. W. nos. 8323/2011. 3324/2011. 8591/2011 and 8592/2011 do not survive for consideration....
Tag this Judgment!Palaswami Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
B.V. PINTO, J. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 22.03.2011 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad in Special N.D.P.S.C.C.No.1/210 convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘The Act’ for short) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two years. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.01.2010 at about 19.30 hours, the accused was found in possession of 21 kgs of Ganja in two air bags in the old bus stand, Hubli, without any permission and hence is charged for having committed the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 10 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and produced M.Os.1 to 4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. The learned Special Judge after hearing the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Ms the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Sri S.B.Shanker, and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
1. 2nd respondent was the owner of a maxicab bearing registration No.KA-07-3266. He had employed the 1st respondent as a driver to drive the said vehicle. Appellant had issued insurance policy to the said vehicle for the period 06.10.2004 to 05.10.2005. On 02.10.2005, when the 1st respondent was driving the said vehicle, an accident occurred and one Ramegowda sustained injuries. The Is' respondent's attempt to avoid the accident having failed, the vehicle dashed to the pedestrian Ramegowda and the 1st respondent having jumped out of the vehicle, sustained injury, which arose out of and during the course of employment. Jurisdictional police registered a case. Injured Ramegowda filed MVC 860/2009 against the respondents and the appellant in the MACT at Mysore. The said petition was allowed and the appellant was directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.45,000/- with interest. 2. The 1st respondent filed a petition of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the against 2rd re...
Tag this Judgment!M Keshava Mukthy Son of Sri Madivat Appa Vs. the State of Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 28.04.2006 passed in application No. 1894/99 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT). Bangalore, under which his application has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are:-The petitioner belongs to Group-2A coming under the category of other Backward Classes. He was born on 15.07.1967. He has passed his pre-university course as also his TCH Course, By notification dated 05.07.1996 applications had been invited for filling-up the posts of Primary School Teachers. The petitioner had applied for the post of Primary School Teacher under Group-2A coming under the category of other Backward Classes and he was selected. Final selection list was published by 3rd respondent on 28.11.1996 in which the petitioner's name stood at Sl.No.70. When the Selecting Authority was about to issue Appointment Order, a complaint was filed by his wife- Smt. T. Bharathi alleging that he married her in May 1994 at Pa...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Deputy Manager Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
(Prayer: M.F.A. No. 3082/2010 is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 14.09.2009 passed in MVC No.6074/2007 on the file of The Chief Judge and Principal MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, Awarding a compensation of Rs.1,99,500/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition till realization.) 1. There is a delay of 65 days in filing M.F.A. No.3082/2010. Cause shown is accepted. Delay condoned. 2. Admit, heard both side. 3. Appeal and Cross-Objection arise out of the judgment and award in M.V.C. No.6074/2007 dated 14.9.2009 on the file of M.A.C.T., Bangalore. 4. Insurer has filed the appeal, questioning the liability whereas, claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation by filing cross-objection. 5. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,99,500/- with interest and has directed the insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. 6. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the insurer is that, the driv...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Elastrex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Manager-production ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
(Prayer: This Writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Industrial Application No.10/2006 at Annexure-E and Declare Respondent workman under section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act, as void and proper and etc.) 1. Petitioner-employer initiated disciplinary proceeding against the respondent-workman for certain acts of misconduct of verbal abuse of the shift Supervisor, followed by a domestic enquiry, extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent and a report holding the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority too, after considering the material on record held the respondent guilty of the charges, and by order dated 1.12.2006, dismiss the respondent from service while simultaneously, filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short Act, registered as Serial Application No.10/2006 in AID No.1/2006, before the Additional Industrial Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Manish Joshi, Madhurai and Others Vs. the Registrar, Karnataka Med ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the enquiry proceedings dated 5-8-2010 initiated by the 1st Respondent/Karnataka Medical Council, Bangalore (The Notice is produced and marked as Annexure-A).) 1. The case of the first petitioner is that he has obtained a Degree in M.B.B.S. and M.S., General Surgery and is presently pursuing his DNB (Surgical Gastro Enterology) Course at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. That he is a registered Medical Practitioner enrolled in terms of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the “State Act”). 2. The second petitioner is also a Doctor specialized in Surgical Gastroenterology and has obtained M.B.B.S., and a Post Graduation in Surgery and registered as a Medical Practitioner in terms of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Act”). 3. The 3rd petitioner is the Head of...
Tag this Judgment!Mellegowda, Mandya District Vs. C. Chennaveeregowda, Mandya District a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the orders on I.A. passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya in R.P.No.161/2010 vide order No.Nil. Dtd 21.03.2011 which is produced at Anex-F.) 1. Jurisdiction is a vexed legal question which has haunted courts not merely at the lower tiers, but has not spared even highest court in the land and instances of even the Supreme Court going back on its views in the context of the subject matter being within the purview of the jurisdiction of a particular forum or as to whether the forum has jurisdiction or not, being not uncommon, even when in judicial parlance, the legal question of jurisdiction has given rise to endless litigation and innumerable decisions not necessarily uniform, but many a times conflicting decisions have come into existence and expecting the revenue authorities like the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to have a clear perception of the concept of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri M. MunirajA. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1. This petition is tiled seeking for mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action against respondent Nos. 3 to 6 forthwith in respect of Annexures A'. B .D and 'F'. 2. Annexure 'A' is the complaint received by the Police Inspector. High Grounds Polio: Station. Bangalore, regarding violation of law and criminal negligence alleging that the patient was forcibly shifted from Mallige Medical Centre - respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and that the respondents have not taken action in accordance with law. Annexure B' is the complaint filed before the Police Commissioner reiterating the averments made in the complaint - Annexure 'A together with acknowledgement. Annexure C is the representation given to the Health Minister reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Annexure 'D is the letter of the Health Department to the Officer of the District Health and Family Welfare Department. 3. It is averred in the Writ Petition that separate complaint is filed before the Karn...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »