Karnataka Court January 2012 Judgments
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Bangalore Water Supply a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
(This Writ Appeal is filed under Section – 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.11589/2010 (S-R) dated 04.02.2011.) VikramajitSen, C,J. This appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.2.2011 directing the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereafter referred to as ‘Board’) to accord the members of the petitioner Association revised pensionary benefits with effect from 1.7.2003 onwards upto 1.7.2008 and thereafter in accordance with revision of pay scales wherever and whenever applicable. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has accepted and acted upon the undertaking of the petitioner Association to the effect that they shall not insist on payment of arrears prior to 1.7.2008, and has directed that these would not be payable consequent upon the revision of pension retrospectively. Thirdly the respondent – Board has also been called upon to consider the request of the petitioner Associ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr Mahabaleshwara Rao and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J : 1. The petitioners/appellants have filed Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order of the Government of Karnataka permanently stopping Grant-in-aid to the respondent Dr.T.M.A Pai Foundation, Manipai. Udupi District which is respondent no.2. The impugned order reads as follows; " Govt.Order No.ED.208, UNE 2008, Bangalore dated 03.12.2008 Regarding the Grant-in-aid policy to the colleges, it was resolved in the 43rd Meeting of Inter University Board held on 17.08.2005 that "The colleges which have been getting grants from many years should gradually go out of the Grant aid system. They sfiould then be permitted to charge higher fees". However. Professional Colleges must be committed to the fixation of Capitation fee and other fee to be paid by the Students as decided by the Government U.G.C., N.C.T.E., andA.I.C.T.E and seats are to be filled up on the basis of roste...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Urban Development Authority and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
NAGARATHNA, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 03/08/2010. passed by the learned Single Judge in various writ petitions filed by the allottees of sites in different layouts by Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter, referred to as "MUDA". for the sake of brevity). 2. MUDA has filed certain appeals being aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge to execute the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners (allottees), within a period of two months, on satisfaction of the receipt of the entire allotment consideration, with interest at 18% for the first 90 days and thereafter, 20% till the date of payment, or the price fete lied in the auction of a comparable site, whichever is higher and also by the fact that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to issue the aforesaid directions on the premise that Rule 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules. 1991 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Allotment Rules, 1991". for the sak...
Tag this Judgment!irfan Son of Iqbal. Vs. State by Siddapur Police Station Bangalore.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
1. Petitioner is accused No.1. He has been chargesheeted by Siddapura Police, Bangalore City, in Crime No 178/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and further read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The investigation is completed and chargesheet has been filed. The allegation in the chargesheet is that the deceased committed suicide by belting the door on account of harassment for dowry. 3. Having regard to the circumstances and also considering that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for quite some time and chargesheet has been filed, I find that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the petition is atlowred. Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: (I) Vie petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like some to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (II) He shall regularly attend the Court on hearing dates. (III)...
Tag this Judgment!Sri N Veeranna, Son of Late M. NarayanappA. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
NAGARATHNA, J. 1. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 10/05/2011, is assailed by the appellant/petitioner, who had tiled the writ petition. 2. In the writ, petition, the petitioner had challenged the Work Order dated 04/03/2011, issued by respondent No.2 and Site Development Plan, approved by respondent No.2 and had sought a direction to respondent No.2 to sanction Site Development Plan only after 7th and 8th respondents submit the revised Site Development Plan providing the roads in conformity with the Road Network Plan produced before the Hon'ble Lokayukta. 3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.l. A Block 11, measuring 3 Acres, situated at dakkur Plantations. Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore. The land is said to be converted for residential purpose; It is averred that Township Promoters Pvt. Ltd.. in collaboration with M/s. Abhishek Developers and M/s.Mantri Promoters -7th and 8,h respnndents herein, have acquired vast extent of land in and...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Harisha Vs. State by Hassan Rural Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
V. JAGANNATHAN, J: 1. This revision of petition is by the accused who has been convicted by the trial court in respect of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and also consequent sentence imposed by the trail Court namely, 6 months imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine for an offence under Section 304-A of IPC and 3 months imprisonment for an offence under Section 279 of IPC. In addition, Rs.500/- was imposed as fine to be paid as compensation to the family of deceased. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, on 31/12/1995, the petitioner was driving matador van bearing registration NO. KA-06-4352 and near Maranahalli border by the side of Lakshmi Coffee Curing Works on Belur-Hassan Road, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the above vehicle by the petitioner, one person by name Nandisha who was walking by the side of the road was hit by the vehicle and the person died at the spot. At that time, the deceased was accompanied by his father Sundaresha. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Vs. Dinesh and Another
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The appellant/petitioner sustained fracture of right tibia in a Motor vehicle accident. The occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and coverage of insurance is not in dispute. The petitioner has filed a claim petition for compensation and is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The petitioner was working as a Medical Sales Representative. The petitioner was paid a salary of Rs.2,500/- with additional benefit of Rs.1,100/- towards other incentives. Besides, he was paid Rs.3,000/- as TA and DA for promoting sales and his net salary should be considered as Rs.3,600/- and an amount of Rs.3,000/- paid would be necessarily spent for TA and DA and it does not accrue as of income to the petitioner. The nature of work of the petitioner involve extensive travels, which involves physical movements. The fracture involved would result in disability at 10%. The said disability would affect the efficiency. The income loss proportiona...
Tag this Judgment!R. Malini Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
V. JAGANNATHAN, J. 1. Those two criminal appeals arise out of one and the same judgment of the Court below. A-1 and A-2 were the accused who have preferred these appeals and they were convicted by the trial Court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(i)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, the accused viz., Malini, was working as a Second Division Assistant in Taluk Office, Mysore, and A-1 Chikkarangaiah was working as Gram Sahayak in the same office and they were approached by the complainant Sabeeha Begum who was in need of minority community certificate. As she had made the application for issue of the said certificate to the Tahsildar, she approached the accused and as per the complaint, A-1 Chikkarangaiah is said to have demanded `200/- from the complainant for issuance of the minority certificate. As A-1 asked the complainant to bring the amount on 17.2.97, the complainant unwilling to pay the br...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore by Its Commissioner and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
Nagarathna, J. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 03/08/2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in various writ petitions filed by the allottees of sites in different layouts by Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter, referred to as “MUDA”, for the sake of brevity). 2. MUDA has filed certain appeals being aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge to execute the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners (allottees), within a period of two months, on satisfaction of the receipt of the entire allotment consideration, with interest at 18% for the first 90 days and thereafter, 20% till the date of payment, or the price fetched in the auction of a comparable site, whichever is higher and also by the fact that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to issue the aforesaid directions on the premise that Rule 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter, referred to as the “Allotment Rules, 1991&...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai Vs. Anasuya
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
(Prayer: This CRP is filed under Section 115 of the CPC praying that this Honble Court may be pleased tom set aside the order of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) At Muddebihal Dated 02.07.2010 passed in O.S. No.167/2008 on preliminary issue and consequently dismiss the suit of the plaintiff by answering preliminary issue, in the affirmative.) 1. It is the defendants revision petition filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, which held neither the suit is hit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. O.S.No.167/2008 is filed by Anusuya W/o. Ningappa aged 45 years, against Laxmibai wife of Ningappa who was aged 60 years, on the date of the suit. The plaintiffs case was that Ningappa married Laxmibai, she was his first wife. As he did not have any children through Laxmibai, he married Anasuya, through her also he had no child...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »