Karnataka Court November 2012 Judgments
P. M. Parameshwaramurthy and Others Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Prin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying To Issue quo warranto and oust the Respondent-6 from the post of lecturer and consequently the registrar of the Respondent-2 Bangalore University, and etc., ) N. KUMAR J. 1. In this writ petition which is a public interest litigation, the petitioners seek a writ of quo warranto for ouster of 6th respondent from the post of Lecturer and consequently, the Registrar of the second respondent - Bangalore University and also seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the appointment of the 6th respondent as the Registrar of the Bangalore University. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The facts in brief are as under: The first petitioner was a student of second respondent - Bangalore University and has acquired his Master in Engineering course. He is a Patron Member of Builder Association of India-Mysore Centre, Life Member of Institution of Engineers (India), Fellowship, Institution of Environmental Engineers(...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India Represented by the Secretary and Others Vs. Major V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals are filed under Section-4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition NO.9762-63/2012 dated 18/06/2012) Vikramajit Sen, C.J. 1. Petitioner No.1, a serving Major in the Indian Army, states that he had fallen in love with Petitioner No.2 who is a foreign citizen, who has been a bona fide student resident in Bangalore for several years and is presently pursuing her doctoral studies. On realizing their resolve to marry each other, Petitioner No.1 filed an application seeking permission to marry petitioner No.2 or if that was considered to be impermissible, to be released from the Army. This request has been rejected and hence they successfully invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this High Court. 2. Events and attitudes in most countries indicate that we are indeed disingenuous and insincere whenever we proclaim, platitudinously, that the world has become a “global village”, distrust and discrimina...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager Vs. Basappa and Another
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Satyanarayana, J. 1. The second respondent Insurance Company in WCA.No.194/2008 on the file of Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Bagalkot, has come up in this appeal challenging the finding of Commissioner so far as it pertains to nature of accident and involvement of vehicle insured with second respondent Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are: The wife of petitioner Basappa Hulappa Rotti, namely Mallawwa was said to be inmate of tractor trailer bearing No.KA-29/T.6898-99, which is said to have involved in an accident on 11.6.2008 resulting in her death. In that behalf, petition was filed seeking compensation for her death before Commissioner. In the said proceedings, on behalf of petitioner, he adduced evidence and relied upon 9 documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of respondents, it is only second respondent which produced policy copy and examined one of its officer as RW.1. The Commissioner, on appreciation of oral and documentary eviden...
Tag this Judgment!itc Limited Kolkata and Others Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Principa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
(Prayer: This WP is Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to declare that sub section (5) of section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as inserted by the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2010 as unconstitutional, ultra vires, illegal, bad in law and null and void and consequently by a writ of certionary or a declaration in the nature of writ of certiorary quash sub-section (5) of section 4 of kvat act, 2003 inserted with effect from 1st April 2010 vide amendment section 2 (iv) of Karnataka Valud Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Karnataka Act No.4 of 2010) – Annexure ‘A’ and etc. H.G. Ramesh, J. Oral: 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Sub Section (5) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (the KVAT Act’ for short) which is inserted by the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Karnataka Act No.4 of 2010) with effe...
Tag this Judgment!Prof S. Sundarajan Vs. Indian Institute of Management
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to accord full pension benefits to the petitioner in terms of pension rules and other provisions regarding the retired employees of the respondent and etc.) 1. The petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondent to accord proportionate pension in terms of Rule 49(2)(b) of the central civil services (pension) Rules. 1922 hereinafter referred as’ the Rules’ for short) on the ground that he had completed 18 years of service in terms of the rules and he entitled for proportionate pension. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he joined the services of the respondent- institution on 1.5.1991 as Associate professor. He was promoted as a professor w.e.f. 17.5.1994. The petitioner took voluntary retirement on 31.5.2009. When he applied for grant of pension is terms of rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules, the ...
Tag this Judgment!i.K. Narayana Vs. the State of Karnataka by Basaveshwaranagara Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.R.P. is filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 23.09.2009 passed by the V Addl. CMM., Bangalore in C.C.No.29789/2007 and order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the P.O., FTC-XVI, Bangalore City in Crl.A.No.771/2009 and acquit the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.) 1. The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court, under Ss.419, 471, 472 and 420 r/w S.511 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for different periods and also pay fine, under the aforesaid sections. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal filed was dismissed by the Sessions Court with an observation regarding sentence under S.472 IPC. Assailing the said Judgments, this criminal revision petition has been filed. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution was fact, on 27.04.2007, at 11.30 a.m., the petitioner was found driving a Ambassador Car bearing registration No.MEX-42, with Karnataka Government nameplates ha...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Srikara Rao Vs. H.C. Prakash
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.R.P. is filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Crl.A.No.109/2009 and Crl.R.P. No.143/2009 and order dated 12.06.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Koppa in C.C. No.446/2008.) 1. The material facts not in dispute are that, the respondent-complainant (for convenience hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) had filed C.C.No.286/2004, in the Court of JMFC, Koppa against the petitioner-accused (for convenience hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’), under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), in relation to bounced cheque for Rs.12,00,000/-, which had been issued by the accused. By a Judgment dated 15.2.2007, the accused was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.24,00,000/- to the complainant. Assailing the said Judgment, the accused filed Crl.A.No.20/2007 in the Sessions Court at Chikmagal...
Tag this Judgment!Lochamesh B. Hugar and Others Vs. Union of India Represented by Its Se ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to take all necessary steps to prevent manufacture / sale drinking water without 1st standard as prescribed Under Section 15 of The Bureau of Indian Standard Act.) Aravind Kumar, J. “WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE, BUT NOT A DROP TO DRINK” are the words of celebrated English Poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772.1834) PREFACE 1. In these petitioners, an important issue touching the lives of human beings has come up for consideration namely, WATER which is one of the basic necessities for human existence. Several debates, discussions, deliberations, seminars across the world is being held or conducted on this vital subject since it has effects on the very existence of the human race. 2. Water is considered a purifier in most religions. Major faiths that incorporate ritual washing (ablution) include Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Rastafari movement, Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kumbaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
In W.A.Nos.15351-15352/2011 These Writ Appeals Are Filed U/S 4 Of The Karnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The Order Passed In The Writ Petition No.31281- 31313/2009(S-R) Dated 23/11/2009. In W.A.Nos.4001-4004/2010 These Writ Appeals Are Filed U/S 4 Of The Karnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The Order Passed In The Writ Petition 13150- 13153/2010 Dated 28/7/10. In W.A.Nos.5876-5984/2011 These Writ Appeals Filed U/S 4 Of The Karnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The Order Passed In The Writ Petition No.35347- 35455/2009(S-R) Dated 06/07/2011. In W.A.No.15358/2011 This Writ Appeal Is Filed U/S 4 Of The Karnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The Order Passed In The Writ Petition No.40263/2010(S-R) Dated 25/07/2011. In W.A.Nos.15359-15361/2011 These Writ Appeals Are Filed U/S 4 Of The Karnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The Order Passed In The Writ Petition No.35250- 252/2010(S-R) Dated 27/07/2011. In W.A.Nos.15398-15401/2011 These Writ Appeals A...
Tag this Judgment!Shamaraja Udupa Vs. the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mangalore and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal Filed Under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.11362 of 2007 dated 02-08-2007.) 1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to teachers in an educational institution. 2. The petitioner was appointed by the third respondent-educational institution in one of the colleges run by it as a full time Lecturer on 09.11.1997. Thereafter, he served the institution in the capacity of Lecturer for 7 years and 20 days. On 30.11.2004 he resigned from service. On 10.08.2005 he made a claim against the third respondent for payment of gratuity in a sum of Rs.1,11,784-00 with interest before the first respondent. By order dated 21.03.2006 as per Annexure-F the claim of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of an employee as defined under Section 2(e) of the Payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »