Karnataka Court March 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.
Nandakumar Naidu Vs. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Ramanna, President 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant to set aside the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the DF, Dharwad in Complaint No.347/09 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant came to be disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.1 to replace the computer system of same model to the appellant / complainant within 15 days. Therefore, he has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. After service of notice the respondent appeared through his counsel. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None represents on behalf of the respondent on the day when the matter was posted for final arguments. Hence argument of respondent is taken as closed. 3. We have perused the records. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the order passed by the District Forum is correct or not? 4. On perusal of the order under challenge and the grounds of appeal it could be stated that the appellant filed the complaint as against the Ops. ...
Vijaya Bank, Bangalore Vs. Suvasini S. Shetty and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Vikramajit Sen, C.J.1. This conglomeration of appeals challenge the judgment dated 08.04.2011 pronounced by learned Single Judge (Anand Byrareddy J.) concerning the claim of several erstwhile employees of the appellant banks who had availed of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) offered to them by the employer banks vide Circular dated 15.12.2000. The writ petitions are substantially similar in content inasmuch as, the prayers therein are to quash the sundry Circulars which attempt to amend Regulations 29(5) of the Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995 (‘Pension Regulations 1995’ for brevity) and thereby deprive them of the benefit of an addition of five years to their respective “qualifying service”; and secondly, for computing the pension in accordance with Regulation 38 of the Pension Regulations 1995, i.e., predicating the computation on the average emoluments drawn in the preceding ten months of their service.2. The factual matrix leading up to the respon...
Khusro Quraishi Vs. State of Karnataka by Minority Welfare Department ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
(Prayer: THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R1 LEADING UPTO TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER DT.25.11.10, VIDE ANN-B, CANCELLING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS CHAIRMAN OF THE KARNATAKA STATE MINORITIES COMMISSION and APPOINTING THE R4 IN HIS PLACE.)1. This writ appeal and the writ petition, in view of the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Honourable Chief Justice, were heard together and since the questions / issues involved and raised are similar, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The appellant and the petitioner in both these matters is one Khusro Quraishi, hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner'.3. The appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd November, 2010, passed in Writ Petition No.26273/2010 (GM-RES), whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petition (w. p. No.26273/2010) was filed by the petitioner apprehending his removal as a Chairman of the Karnataka State Min...
M/S. Concepts and More, a Regional Partnership, Rep. by Its Partner, A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 30.4.2011 passed by the 2ndrespondent directing cancellation of the trade licence of the petitioners, etc.)1. In all these cases, the petitioners have challenged the order at Annexure ‘L’ dated 30.4.2011 whereby the health officer of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) has cancelled their trade licence for carrying on the business at different places of the City of Bangalore.2. The petitioners are the owners of restaurant/cafes situated at different parts of the City of Bangalore. It is contended that as a pat of their service for a long period of time, they offer to their customers ‘hookah’, an eastern smoking pipe designed with a long tube passing through an urn of water that cools the smoke as it is drawn through. The officials of the BBMP raided the premises of the petitioners serving hookah...
Mrs. Archana Rithesh Vs. A.V. Hospital and Others
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Ramanna, President This Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner to set aside the order of dismissal for non prosecution dated 14.03.2011 passed by this Commission in Complaint No. 277/2010 and restore the complaint on various grounds. 2. Petitioner also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 219 days caused in filing this petition supported by an affidavit of the petitioner Smt. Archana Rithesh explaining the delay. 3. After service of notice, the respondents appeared and filed their objections to the Miscellaneous Petition contending that, the complaint came to be dismissed for non prosecution for the second time and the petitioner/complainant did not taken steps to restore. It was only on 17.11.2011 the present petition has been filed which is barred by limitation and petitioner is expected to explain the delay caused in preferring this petition to condone the same. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused th...
Ramachandra Bhat Proprietor:aparna Steel Industries Vs. Appaji Rao, Ka ...
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Ramanna, President The respondent herein, in the first instance has filed a complaint before the District Forum. The Then President of the District Forum Sri. Shama Bhat dismissed the Complaint No.472//01 on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable and the parties are relegated to the Civil Court to work out their remedies which order came to be challenged by the complainant before this Commission in Appeal No.641/2003. This Commission vide its order dated 11.7.2005 remanded the matter to the District Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after due notice to the parties. 2. On remand, the District Forum, Dakshina Kannada vide its order dated 13.11.2006 allowed the complaint directed the Opposite Party to replace the defect free new unit with clear demonstration and thereafter the complainant is directed to return the defective unit supplied by the OP and the OP is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,500/- as compensation and costs. Therefore, the Opposite ...
Trinity Comforts Private Limited. Vs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
1. The applicant transferor Company in respect of scheme of amalgamation as at Annexure-F to the application, is before this Court praying that the convening of the meeting of the equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors be dispensed.2. Heard Sri. Abhijith Atur, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the application papers.3. The averments made in the application as pointed out by the learned counsel would indicate that the applicant-Company which was incorporated on 16.08.2004 has been carrying on its business. The Board of the applicant-Company by its resolution dated 27.11.2011 (Annexure-C) has resolved that the scheme of amalgamation be accepted and the applicant-Company be transferred as per the scheme of amalgamation. In respect of the same, the further process is being taken up by the applicant-Company.3. The Chartered Accountant as per his certificate as at Annexure-G has certified that the applicant-Company has 13 shareholders. The said 13 sharehol...
Trinity Heart Foundation Private Limited. Vs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
1. The applicant-transferee Company, in respect of scheme of amalgamation as at Annexure-F to the application, is before this Court praying that the convening of the meeting of the equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors be dispensed.2. Heard Sri. Abhijith Atur. learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the application papers.3. The averments made in the application as pointed out by the learned counsel would indicate that the applicant-Company. Which was incorporated on 31.01.2000 has been carrying on its business. The Board of the applicant-Company by its resolution dated 27.11.2011 (Annexure-C) has resolved that the scheme of amalgamation be accepted and the applicant-Company be transferred as per the scheme of amalgamation. In respect of the same, the further process is being taken up by the applicant-Company.3. The Chartered Accountant as per his certificate as at Annexure-G has certified that the applicant-Company has 29 shareholders. Out of 29 sharehol...
State by Lokayuktha Police. Vs. Sridhara Raikar, Son of RamappA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
1. This appeal is by the State through Lokayuktha calling in question the acquittal of the respondent Toy the trial court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.2. The prosecution case in short is that the Holalur village. Shimoga taluk, demanded Rs.500/- accused while working as the Revenue Inspector at from the complainant as bribe amount for effecting the change of khata in the name of the complainant from the name of the complainant's wife who had died. As the complainant no. willing to pay the bribe amount, approached the Lokayuktha police with his complaint as per Ex.P10 and thereafter, the pre-trap mahazar was drawn as per Ex.Pl and the trap was also successful according to the prosecution as per Ex.P2 and after obtaining the sanction order Ex.PIO, charge sheet was submitted.3. At the trial, following the accused not pleading guilty, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and 16 documents were marked a...
Sri Sridharan Son of Late Kunhambu. Vs. Sri N.T.Srinivas Son of N. Thi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
1. The petitioner has initiated a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. On 14.12.2004, the learned Magistrate issued process under Section 204 Cr.P.C , and directed respondent/accused to appear before the court 04.04.2005. The accused was continuously absent. Therefore, non bailable warrant was issued from time to time.3. On 27.10.2005, the accused appeared through his counsel and he was released on bail. On 10.02.2006, the accused was absent and therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued. On 07.03.2006. the accused made an application and the non bailable warrant issued was recalled. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of XVIII Addl. C.M.M.. Bangalore. On 28.03.2006, the accused was absent. On 18.04.2006. learned counsel for complainant was absent. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution.4. The learned Magistrate before dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution should have referred to the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C a...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »