Karnataka Court January 2012 Judgments
P. Gangadhar Swamy and Others Vs. Manu Balogara, Secretary, Department ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
(Prayer: These Cccs’ Are Filed U/S 11 and 12 Of The Contempt Of Court Act By The Complainant Praying To Initiate Appropriate Proceedings To Take Action Against The Accused For Disobedience Of The Order Passed By The Hon’ble High Court In W.P.No.4003/2007, Dated 11.03.2011 Vide Annexure-C2.) 1. Neither writ jurisdiction is meant to improve the fortunes of persons coming to this Court nor the contempt jurisdiction can be exercised either as a devise to coerce, pressurize or blackmail persons or even to exercise the jurisdiction in a sympathetic manner. 2. Complainants are persons who are working in a theater organization by name Rangayana at Mysore and submission of Sri.Raghavendra, learned counsel for the complainants is that such employees are receiving salary which was aided by the Government of Karnataka, but the same being not on par with the service conditions of the employees of the State Government, the complainants are agitating for parity. 3. In this background, it ...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C., B.T.S Division, Shanthinagar Vs. Ak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 19/09/2007 passed in MVC No.8006/2006 on the file of the XIX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH – 17), awarding a compensation of 8,01,000/- with the interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of the petition, till deposit.) 1. This appeal by the corporation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19th September 2007, passed in MVC No 8006/2006, by the XIX Additional judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-17), (For short ‘Tribunal’), for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.8,01,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for 25.00 Lakhs, is excessive, on the higher side and is therefore, liable to be reduced. 2. The facts in brief are that, claimant No. 1 is the wif...
Tag this Judgment!Bangarappa Vs. Rudappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
(Prayer: This RSA is filed U/s 100 of CPC against the judgment and Decree dtd.08.06.2005 passed in R.A.No.108/2004 on the file of the Addl. District judge, fast Track Court, Chitradurga, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dtd.04.12.1997 passed in OS 236/94 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.), Chitradurga.) Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal under section 100 of the CPC is directed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below whereby a suit bearing O.S.No.236/94 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, stands allowed. The suit was instituted for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit properties and for injunction restraining the appellant-defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, from interfering with their possession over the suit property. 2. The facts that are relevant for deciding this appeal are as under: The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The defendant cl...
Tag this Judgment!Jayamma, Tumkur District and Others Vs. Rizvan, Bangalore District and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 11/09/2007 passed in MVC No.585/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Additional MACT, Madhugiri, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 11th September 2007, passed in MVC No.585/2000, by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madhugiri, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `1,55,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for `5,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that, the claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are children of deceased Siddappa. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 11:15 A.M. on 18-05-2000, when the deceased was sit...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka Rep by Its Principal Secretary and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order impugned dated 25.01.2011. Passed by Respondent no.3 vide Annex.J to the Writ Petition.) H.G. RAMESH, J. (Oral): 1. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this order. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a former Branch Manager of the Honnalli branch of the Davangere District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and who is presently under suspension, is challenging the order dated 25.01.2011 passed by respondent no.3 in exercise of the power under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the Act’ for short). By the impugned order, respondent no.3 has appointed respondent no.6 as an Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry relating to the alleged mis-appropriation of money amounting to several crores of rupees in the Honnalli branch of respondent no.5 – ...
Tag this Judgment!Maheboobsab Buransab Maniyar and Others Vs. Mohadinsab Maheboobsab Man ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
Kumar, J. 1. The appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which has dismissed the suit for enforcement of pre-emptive right under Mahomedan Law. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referenced to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The subject matter of the suit is property bearing CTS Nos. 700 and 701 situated at War No.II of Bijapur City, located towards South by property bearing CTS Nos.702 and 704, Ward No.II of Bijapur city. Plaintiffs-1 to 3 are owners of CTS No.702, Ward No.II of Bijapur City. They are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. 4. Defendants-2 and 3 are the owners of the schedule property. Defendant No.1 purchased the schedule property from defendants-2 and 3 under a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1996. The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No.1 is not the resident of Bijapur city and he is a permanent resident of Babalad village. The plaintiffs disclosed their i...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. M/S Standard Chartered ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
(Prayer: This ITA is filed U/s.260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 07-04-2006 passed in INT.T.A.6/Bang/2002 for the assessment year 1998-99, praying to formulate the substantial questions of law, allow the appeals and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in INT.TA 6/Bang/2002 dated 07-04-2006 confirming the order of the appellate commissioner and confirm the order passed by the dy., Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-V, Bangalore and etc.,) 1. The appeal by the Revenue u/s. 21H of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 r/w. Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 is directed against the order dated 7.4.2006 passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.42/Bang/2003 posing the following questions of law for our answer as arising out of the order of the Tribunal. “1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order of assessment without taking into consideration the material relied on by the Assessing Officer and dire...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. M/a Standard Chartered ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
(Prayer: ITA 1156 of 2006 is filed under Section 21H of the Int.Tax Act r/w Sec.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 07.04.2006 passed in Int.T.A.No.21/Bang/2002, for the assessment year 1992-93 praying to set aside the said order and etc.,) 1. These five appeals by the revenue under section 21H of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 [for short, the Act] read with Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the IT Act], are in respect of the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94,1994-95,1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively and are all in respect of the same assessee, an Indian company by name M/s Standard Chartered Finance Ltd., (formerly ESANDA Finanz and Leasing Ltd.) H-2, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001, which was a non-banking financial company, registered under the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the subject assessments relate to assessment of chargeable interest for these assessment years for the determination of the liability under the Act...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Sundaresh Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to quash Ann-B, the Endorsement dt.29.6.11, issued by the R4 and etc.) 1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the endorsement at Annexure-B dated 29.6.2011, whereby the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sanjayanagar police Station, Bangalore has directed the petitioner to file the complaint in the police station having territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. 2. The petitioner contends that one N.J.Nagaraju S/o Jayaramaiah, residing at No.41, Telecom Employees Layout, Bhogadi, Mysore had agreed to sell immovable property bearing Sy.No.138/C measuring 1 acre 8 guntas situated at Kadugodi village, Channasandra Road, Bangalore in his favour as also in favour of Sukanya Murthy and her brother Sridhar and received a sum of Rs.2.00 crores from them towards the sale consideration. Since the price of the land has increased, he demanded additional amount for sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Maheboobsab Buransab Maniyar and Others Vs. Mohadinsab Maheboobsab Man ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
Kumar, J. 1. The appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which has dismissed the suit for enforcement of pre-emptive right under Mahomedan Law. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referenced to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The subject matter of the suit is property bearing CTS Nos. 700 and 701 situated at War No.II of Bijapur City, located towards South by property bearing CTS Nos.702 and 704, Ward No.II of Bijapur city. Plaintiffs-1 to 3 are owners of CTS No.702, Ward No.II of Bijapur City. They are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. 4. Defendants-2 and 3 are the owners of the schedule property. Defendant No.1 purchased the schedule property from defendants-2 and 3 under a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1996. The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No.1 is not the resident of Bijapur city and he is a permanent resident of Babalad village. The plaintiffs disclosed their i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »