Karnataka Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
N.M.Manohar Son of Late MallappA. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Vikramajit Sen, CJ (Oral)1. The notice dated 28.06.2010 issued by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Periyapatna, has been assailed. The grievance of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.23217/2010 is that the notice itself calls upon the Petitioner to remove barren house, which exists on the subject land.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to direct the Executive Officer to grant a hearing to the Petitioner, as well as Mr. N.M. Manohar S/o late Mallappa and Mr.Kullappa S/o Iraiah, the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2201 /2009. After giving the parties a hearing, the Executive Officer shall decide the matter by passing a speaking order. The entire exercise be completed within two months from today. In this view, parties to appear before the Executive Officer on 28.02 2012 at 11.00 a.m. The Executive Officer shall thereafter proceed with the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law.3. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of gr...
Dr. Anantha Nagendra Bhat. Son of Shri Nagendra Bhat.. Vs. University ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Vikramajit Sen, C.J.1. This appeal assails the order dated 3rd December 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition in which the prayer was for quashing the selection of Dr. K. Narayana Bhat (third respondent) as Reader in Sanskrit in the University of Mysore, Karnataka. The petitioner/appellant was a Lecturer, Department of Sanskrit, University of Mysore having been awarded with Ph.D degree in Sanskrit. He had applied for the post of Reader in Sanskrit in response to a notification issued by the University of Mysore. Respondent No.3 was selected as Reader and has been holding that post arid discharging the duties thereof since 2007. The first challenge was based on the marks obtained by the petitioner/appellant and Respondent No.3 in the selection process, which has been held in the impugned order as beyond challenge. The second argument concerns whether Vidyavaridhi Degree awarded to Respondent No. 3 was equivalent to Ph.D., which was an essential qualificati...
Sri C. M. Venkata Swamy Vs. Sri.T.K. Shankar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
1. This revision petition is by the accused being aggrieved by his conviction for an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act by the trial court and appeal preferred by him also being dismissed by the lower appellate court.2. None appears for the petitioner and this Court therefore heard Sri.G.S.Prasartna Kumar, learned Counsel &r R1.3. Submission of learned Counsel for the 1st respondent is that, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of N.LAct and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 130,00,000/- within four months, failing which, the petitioner to undergo S.I. for six months. This order of the trial court was called in question by the petitioner before the lower appellate court arid as there was delay in preferring the appeal, I.A. was filed seeking condonation of delay. However, the petitioner did not seriously prosecute the matter before the lower appellate court even with regard to the I.A. filed to condone delay and consequently, the lower appellate court after...
Sri H.K.Krishna Son of Chikkamoddekempegowda and ors. Vs. the Thasilda ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
1. The order made by the Taluka Executive Magistrate on 05.04.2011, confirmed by the learned Judge of Fast Track Court-Ill at Mandya, has been called into question in this petition.2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and I have gone through the impugned orders.3. The dispute between contesting parties relates to performance of jathras and also light to receive offerings from public to expend for jathras and performance of poojas in Sri Chowdeshwari Temple of Hemmanahalli Village. Maddur Taiuk.4. The II-respondent claims such right as a hereditary right. The petitioners claim such a right as trustees.5. In my considered opinion, the dispute between parties viz. one party asserting customary right and the other party asserting right of trustees cannot be adjudicated upon under section 145 Cr.P.C, which is primarily intended to pass a tentative order to prevent breach of peace and tranquility concerning any land or water dispute.In the case on hand, parties are not claiming any ri...
Smt Muniyamma Wife of Shri Papanna and ors. Vs. Shri St Suresha, Son o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
1. Appellants instituted O.S.298/06 before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.). Kolar, on 17/7/2006 for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the respondent herein, arraigned as defendant, from interfering with the immovable property bearing Sy.No.90/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas from out of 3 acres 8 guntas, Beechagondahalli Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, asserting that the husband of Is' plaintiff and the father of the other plaintiffs, during his. lifetime conveyed the immovable property in favour of Seethapanavara Thammanna, the father of the 1st respondent/defendant with a condition of reconveyance. It appears that neither the plaintiffs nor the deceased Papanna, during his lifetime, obtained a re-conveyance from the purchaser. However, on the death of the purchaser, a deed of re-conveyance was executed and registered jointly by S.T.Chikka Thammanna and S.T.Chowdappa. two sons of deceased Seethapanavara Thammanna, while the respondent/defendant, another son, d...
The Union of India by Its Secretary Ministry of Defence and ors. Vs. S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Vikramaiit Sen, CJ (Oral)1. To Writ Appeal No. 1289/2009. Mr.M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for Sri Surya Narayana Swamy Temple and Kalyan Mantap (Regd. Trust) states that he has received instructions to the effect that the boundary wall of the temple, which impedes through traffic and passage from the first main road going towards Krishna Reddy Layout, shall be removed by the temple authorities within 48 hours. In other words, since the first main road has a width of 20 feet as well as the road on the northern side leading to Krishna Reddy Layout is 20 feet !n width, the boundary wall of necessary width shall be removed.2. Learned counsel for the temple also submits that there is grave concern that an order is passed by the Joint Commissioner on 13.02.2012 cancelling the katha of the temple Trust property and also passing directions prohibiting collection of taxes. This order has been passed in violation of the principles of audi alteram partem, i.e.. without giving the co...
The State of KarnatakA. Vs. Aliman Social and Rural Education
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Vikramajit Sen, CJ (Oral)1. There is no cavil Chat the controversy before us has been completely answered by the subsequent judgment of the Full Bench reported in Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka vs. The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Department of Education and Others ILR 2008 KAR 2895. It is also not in dispute that although Special Leave Petitions have been filed, Honble Supreme Court has not stayed the operation of the said Judgment. We think it salutary to reproduce the following paragraph of the said Judgment as it encapsulates the dicta set down by the Full Bench:"198. In the light of the aforesaid I discussion and in response to the reference, we record the following conclusions:-(1) Right to education is a fundamental right being a species of right to life flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. By virtue of Article 21-A right to free and compulsory primary education is a fundamental right guaranteed to all children of the age of ...
Ammayamma, Wo. Venkatesh. Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
1. Appellant, a victim of road traffic accident, filed MVC No.6115/06 in the MACT at Bangalore, against the respondents, to pay compensation for the injury sustained by her on account of the rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. KA 05-F-083, by its driver, at 7.30 p.m. on 21.02.2006. The claim petition was allowed in part and compensation of 1,34,000/- with interest was ordered to he paid. Dissatisfied with the sum awarded, this appeal has been filed by the claimant. The respondents have not questioned the award directing payment of compensation.2. Sri Shripad V. Shastri, learned Advocate, contended that the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and the sum awarded under the heads 'loss of earning during laid-off period', "incidental expenses' Moss of future income' and Moss of amenities' is meager, since the appellant has sustained 65% disability to the right hand and 22% to the whole body. Learned counsel seeks enhancement of compensation3...
Shri. N.Nagaraj. Son of Late Kote Gowda, Vs. Smt. BasammA. Wo Late Heb ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
1. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.). Mysore in O.S.No. 1805/2007 has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed on 07.02.2011.2. The plaint, it filed the suit to enforce the contract on the ground that under an agreement of sale dated 29.01.2007 1 acre 4 guntas of land out of 2 acres situated at Mandakaih Village. Kasaba Hobli, Mysore. The defendants agreed to sell the property for a total sale consideration of 23.10.000/- and they received 3,00,000/- as advance. According to the plaint averments, the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 15.10.2007 by obtaining the signatures of Defendant Nos.6 and 7. At the time of sale deed on the ground that they did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, suit was filed to enforce the agreement of sale.3. The defendants contested the case. The first defendant admitted that the defendant had agreed to execute the sale deed within a ...
Sri S.Venkatesh Son of Late V. Sanjeevaiah and anr.. Vs. Sri. Srinivas ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
1. This writ petition is by the defendant questioning the order dated 4.1.2012 on IA. 1/2013 in O.S.No.3002/2007 on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. IA. 1/2011 was filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint inter-all for adding paragraph 9 as the defendant had set up a will against the plaintiffs and the plaintiff claimed that the testator of the will was not in sound state of mind and he was bed ridden. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint.3. It. is not in dispute that the defendant is claiming his rights under the will and it is for him to establish the same. Amendment will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. As such, there is no merit in the petition.4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is of the year 2007 and the matter has reached the stage of evidence. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible not later than ni...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »