Karnataka Court December 2012 Judgments
M/S. M.S. Jelly Crushing Unit, Chamarajanagar Vs. the State of Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-28-2012
1. Sri. R.G. Kolle, learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents 1 and 3. Sri. Gururaj, Joshi, advocate, is directed to take notice for the respondent No.2. Sri. N.K. Gupta, advocate, is directed to take notice for the respondents 4 and 5. 2. The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.41069/2012. 3. The petitioner has filed application for grant of license on 13.12.2012. The application needs to be considered within three months. The matter is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.41069/2012. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner vide Annexure-C dated 13.12.2012 within the stipulated period of three months. Consequently, Annexure-B issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the operation of the petitioner’s unit till the disposal of the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Appalappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final notification dated 10.11.2008, issued by second respondent produced at Annexure-B, as void and quash the endorsement dated 30.8.2010 issued by the third respondent produced at Annexure-A, as illegal. This petition, having been heard and reserved on 04.12.2012 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day, the Court delivered the followingJ ORDER 1. The petitioners question the acquisition of land in Sy.No.15/2 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas of Benniganahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore. 2. The petitioners claim as owners of the land and are said to have purchased the same from the predecessor in title, one Channarayappa. It is stated that an extent of 26 guntas had been acquired by the State for the benefit of NGEF, under a notification dated 28.09.1977. The petitioners complain that they have not received compensation in respect of the same. It is stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Devika Siddalingagowda and Others Vs. the Commissioner City Munic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
(These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the notice dated 26.11.2012 vide Annexure-O issued by the respondent convening a meeting of No. Confidence Motion on 7.12.2012.) The first petitioner is the President and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Members of the City Municipal Council, Tumkur. They are before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the notice dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure-‘O’) issued by the first respondent convening a meeting on 07.12.2012 to consider the ‘No Confidence Motion’ moved against the first petitioner. The respondents No.2 to 11 being the other members of the said Municipal Council have sought impleadment and have been impleaded as respondents No.2 to 11. 2. The first petitioner was elected in the general elections to represent Ward No.28 which was reserved for ‘Women’ and was thereafter elected as the President on 17.03.2012. The office of the President ha...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidevi Rice Industries, Mandya and Others Vs. Union of India by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1. Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India is directed to take notice for respondent No.1. The Government pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 2 to 4. 2. The petitions are considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the Rice Millers and also traders in food grains. It is claimed that the first respondent, in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, had made the order, called the Removal of (Licensing requirements, stock limits and movement restrictions) on Special Food Stuffs Order, 202 and the same is extended to all States and Union Territories of India and came into force in 2002. Therefore, by virtue of the same, there was no restriction on the movement of rice and paddy from one place to another. However, the second respondent and their Enforcement Officers, on misinterpretation of the order passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Wadeyar Vs. Honand#8217;ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
(This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order vide Annexure-E dated 21.12.2011 passed by the respondent and quash the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Inquiry Authority, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This writ petition has been filed to quash a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the respondent in D.I.No.11/2005 against the petitioner. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) on 9.3.1983. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) on 29.5.1995. He was promoted as District Judge, on ad-hoc basis, on 15.11.2003. A complaint dated 1.9.2005 having been received, upon holding of a discreet inquiry, based on a report submitted, Administrative Committee – I (“Committee” for short) of the High Court of Karnataka, passed a resolution on 14.11.2005, to frame charges against the petitioner. The draft charges was approved on 15.3.2006. Arti...
Tag this Judgment!Munivenkataswamy Vs. Muniyappa @ Muniga and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Annexure-E, the order of the sixth respondent, Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District in H and A No.40/78-79 dated 25.1.1982 purporting to regrant 1 acre, 06 guntas of land in Sy.No.58/1 of Channahalli, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, to the respondents 1 to 5 and quash the order of the first Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore as per Annexure-‘F’ in M.A. 62/2001 on his file dated 14.12.2005 dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the Tahasildar.) It is the claim of the petitioner that Channahalli in Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District was an inam village under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Inams Abolition Act’, for brevity). 2. It transpires that one Muniveerappa had sought for grant of occupanc...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Abdul Hammed and Another
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
Heard. By the impugned judgment the respondents herein were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 and are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each. Default sentence is also imposed. The State has filed this appeal praying for enhancement of sentence on the ground that inadequate sentence is imposed on the respondents. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant Manohar Rao Biradar who was the Assistant Executive Engineer at GESCOM, Vigilance, Bidar, on getting credible information of theft of electricity pertaining to the house of accused persons situated at Naubad went to the spot along with staff and police at about 4.00 PM on 05.01.2007. They inspected the installation of R.R.No.NBL 320, which stood in the name of accused No.1 and found that there is a direct hook from the LT line and consequently the electricity was being used unlawfully, though the meter was already removed. Thus it was prima facie clear that there was theft of electri...
Tag this Judgment!D.L. Nagaraj Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, Lic of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records, set aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2012 and direct the respondent to reinstate him to service and grant all consequential benefits including arrears of salary etc.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for setting aside an Order dated 22.11.2012, dismissing the petitioner from the service of the respondent – Corporation and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and extend all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner joined the service of the Corporation, as an ‘Assistant’ on 01.04.1992. Having been promoted, he was working in the post of ‘Assistant Administrative Officer’. On 14.02.2012, petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, alleging commission of certain misconduct. Petitioner submitted a reply dated 24.02.2012 and denied the allegations made in the said charge-sheet. Respondent decided to conduct an...
Tag this Judgment!Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Association of India (Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
(These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the provisions of finance Act, 1994 as amended by finance Act, 2010 introducing an explanation to Section 65(105) (zzq) and 65(105) (zzzh) and a new entry(zzzzu) in Section 65 (105) of the finance act 1994 is unconstitutional void and ultra vires and etc.) (Oral): In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the Constitutional validity of the Explanations to clauses (zzq) and (zzzh) and clause (zzzzu) of sub-Section 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 ('the Act' for short). The aforesaid provisions were inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 1st July 2010. It is stated that petitioner No.1 is an Association of persons and entities engaged in the business of real estate, development and allied activities and petitioner No.2 is its President. 2. I have heard Sri Vivek Holla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Geetha, appearing f...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Wahab Vs. the Karnataka State Transport Authority Bangalore by It ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
(These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the common order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 3.11.12 made in RP no.705/11, RP no.706/11, Appeal No.1147/11 and Appeal No.1148/11 Annx-V dismissing the RP and appeals and to quash the following orders of R1 and etc.) (Oral): Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of countersignatures by the Karnataka State Transport Authority to the two permits granted to him in the State of Kerala is the question that arises for determination in these writ petitions. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 03.11.2012 (Annexure-V) passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 3. Facts in brief: The petitioner was granted Stage Carriage Permits bearing No.43/STA/86 and No.44/STA/86 for the two routes namely Thalangara to Mangalore and Parasinakadavu to Mangalore respective...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »