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.
R. Siddappa Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
1. Sri B.V. Shankar Narayan Rao, learned Counsel takes notice for respondent.The petitioner has sought for quashing the order Annexure-A, dated 11-10-2006 issued by the respondent, by which, the allotment of site made in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled.2. The records reveal that the petitioner submitted application along with necessary particulars pursuant to the notification issued by BDA calling for applications for allotment of sites. The application for allotment of site was filed by the petitioner on 23-10-2003. He sought for allotment of site under weaker section category. In the said application, the petitioner has clearly mentioned his date of birth as 8-10-1945 and that his age is 48 years. He has also mentioned that his annual income is Rs. 9,600/-. Considering the application filed by the petitioner, the BDA has allotted site bearing No. 410 measuring 6 mt. x 9 mt. (20 ft. x 30 ft.) under Economically Weaker Section in Sir M. Visveshwaraiah Layout, VII Block, B...
Smt. Anjanamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
1. Sri. R. Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Notice to the respondent Nos.5 to 8 is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner has called into question the Assistant Commissioner’s order, dated 28.10.2008 (Annexure-J) and the Deputy Commissioner’s order, dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure-K). 3. The detailed advertence to the facts of the case may not be necessary. The petitioner claims that her husband late Sri Anjanappa had 2 wives herself and Kempamma. Alleging that the joint family property was wrongly mutated in favour of the respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8, they filed the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that the coparcenary rights of the parties cannot be determined by the revenue authorities. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, the petitioner and Kempamma filed the revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissio...
Oswald Vagas and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
1. The land bearing Sy. No.132/5 measuring 1.92 acres situated at 62-Thokur Village, Dakshina Kannada originally belonged to one Jacob Vegas. He had two sons viz., Francis Vegas and Marian Vegas. After the death of Jacob Vegas, partition took place between the two sons of Jacob Vegas. After the partition, the aforesaid land has been divided into pieces and the same are numbered as Sy. No.132/5P1, Sy. No. 132/5P2 etc. All the petitioners are either children or grandchildren of Francis Vegas and Marian Vegas.2. The land to an extent of 1.32 acres was sought to be acquired by the respondents by issuing preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 on 7-9-1994. Said notification was gazetted on 5-10-1994. But the first respondent issued final notification under Section 28(4) of KIADB Act on 25-5-1997, which came to be gazetted on 25-7-1997. Prior to issuing final notification, the petitioners were notified. Petitioners 1, 3, father of peti...
K.T. Uthappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Inspector of P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
(This Crl.A. filed u/s.374(2) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.8.2010 passed by the XXXII Addl. City Civil and S.J. and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, in SPL.C.C.No.2/2006, convicting the appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence P/U/S 120(b) r/w 467, 468, 409, 477A, 420 of the IPC and convicting the appellant/accused No.2 for the offence P/U/S 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of prevention of corruption act 1988.This Crl.A. filed u/s.374(2) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.8.2010 passed by the XXXII Addl. City Civil and S.J. and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, in SPL.C.C.No.2/2006, convicting the appellants/accused for the offence P/U/S 120(b) R/w 467, 468, 409, 477A, 420 IPC and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of prevention of corruption act 1988.)These two appeals arise out of one and the same judgment of the Spl.Judge Court for CBI Cases in Spl.C.C.No.2/2006.2. Crl.A.No.933/20...
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. S ...
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Ramanna, President This appeal is filed by the appellants / OP-1 and 2 to set aside the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the I Additional District Forum in Complaint No.736/2011 whereby the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 M/s Sukee Enterprises came to be allowed directing this appellant to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.8,92,821/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 1.12.2009 until payment with costs of Rs.2,000/- and etc. Hence OP-1 has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. On service of notice Respondent No.1 appeared through a counsel. Notice to Respondent No.2 is not served. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Respondent No.1. We have also perused the records. The short point involved in this appeal is that whether the DF is justified in passing the impugned order. 3. As could be seen from the materials respondent No.1 initially filed the complaint before the DF in Complaint No.662/11 which came to be dismissed on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction a...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›