Karnataka Court March 2012 Judgments
S.Anthoniraj Son of SowrappA. Vs. the Chief Traffic Manager B.M.T.C
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
1. These two writ petitions are filed by Corporation and workman calling in question award passed by III Additional Labour Court dated 13.10.2010 in I.D.No.46/2009 whereunder order of dismissal has been modified by imposing punishment of reduction of four annual increments without consequential benefits Corporation has filed this writ petition assailing the order of reinstatement. Workman has filed writ petition for not granting 100% back wages.2. Today learned advocates appearing for parties have filed a joint memo whereunder corporation has agreed to reinstate the workman into service without back wages without consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till date of actual reinstatement. It is also submitted continuity of service would be taken into consideration only for the purposes of terminal benefits. The date of actual reinstatement will be effective from 15.04.2012 as agreed to between parties.3. Workman, Sri. Anthoniraj who is present before court submits that the cont...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ramesh Babu Son of Jayaramappa and anr Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 6 and accused No.4 is the son of the President of Village Panchayath and accused No.6 is a villager.2. Case has been registered against the petitioners in Crime No.24/2011 by Y.N.Hosakote police, Tumkur District for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and x 409 read with 34 of IPC.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused No.1 has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, in Crl.RNo.3859/2011 dated 12.7.2011. It is also submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have also been granted bail.4. Having regard to the same. I find that these petitioner could also be granted anticipatory bail.5. Accordingly, petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners by Y.N. Hosakote Police, Tumkur District in Crime No.24/2011, the Police shall interrogate them and after interrogation; the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to following conditions:i) Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Keran Son of K.B.Chikkahuchaiah. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
1. Case has been registered against these petitioners in Crime No-148/2009 by K.M.Doddi police, Mandya District for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 365, 366(B) read with 149 of IPC.2. Though case m registered in the year 2009, approached to in CrIP.ISo.569/2010 and this Court, by order dated these accused on certain conditions was that the order of anticipatory bail shall remain in force for a period of one weeks and the petitioners shall seek regular bail.3. However, the petitioners, in violation of the order, neither have secured bail nor complied with any of the conditions, In turn, this second petition has been filed for similar relief. The petitioners, though required to comply with the earlier order, instead of complying the order, they allowed the order to lapse on its own, and long thereafter, filed one more application for anticipatory bail before the Trial Court in CrL.Misc.No.124/2012, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Venkateshwara Trading Corporation. Vs. Sri. N. Yathiraju Son of L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
SUBHASH B ADI, J.1. This is defendants' writ petition against the order dated 22.2.2012 on I.A. filed under Order XXVI Rule 10-Afl) read with Section 151 of CPC.2. Defendants sought for referring Ex.D5 to the handwriting expert on the ground that the plaintiff has denied the signature on Ex.D5 and it is necessary to prove that the defendants are not the tenants, but one Shankaranarayana Setty is the tenant. The said application has been rejected by the trial court, as against which, this writ petition is filed.3. Defendant - Sri.Venkateshwara Trading Corporation, which has filed the written statement, does not dispute that the plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the premises and the rents are also paid by Sri.Venkateshwara Trading Corporation. It is not in dispute that, it is the proprietorship concern run by Shankaranarayana Setty. Having regard to the same, the trial court found that there is no need to refer the document for handwriting expert when the pleadings themselves were clear...
Tag this Judgment!D. Sambashivan Vs. Mrs. Usharani D/O. Late Dhanakoti and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the XXII Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore in O.S.No.9670/2005 vide Annexure-D.)Chief Justice1. This Writ Petition assails the Order of the XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in O.S.No.9670/2005, passed on 19.12.2010, whereby a document styled as a Release Deed dated 05.05.1976 was permitted to be ‘marked’ by the Defendants in their evidence, in a suit for partition and possession of Joint family properties filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner. Review Petition No.482/2010 has been filed by the plaintiff to recall the Judgment dated 17.01.1994 rendered by the Division Bench in RFA No.43/1993 reversing the earlier Order dated 16.01.1993 of the Trial Court, in essence declining to allow the very same ‘Release deed’ to be read in evidence.2. The plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Thimma Naika Vs. Papanna @ Kempegowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
1. This is a plaintiff’s second appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S. No. 25/98 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Hunsur, and the dismissal of R.A. No. 83/02 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hunsur.2. Appellant instituted O.S. 25/98 on 19/3/1998 arragning the 1st respondent as defendant for a direction to the defendant to execute an amended or rectification deed incorporating the correct Sy. No. as 23/2, the extent as 2 acres 15 guntas, and the boundaries on the East and West, as described in the schedule to the mortgage deed dated 29/1/1970, by deleting Sy. No. 72/2, extent 3 acres 3 guntas, in the sale deed executed and registered on 8/2/1971 by one Kempegowda, S/o Kempwgowda.3. The defendant described as Papanna @ Kempegowda, S/o. Kempegowda and Honga Eramma, on notice entered appearance, resisted the suit by filing written statement interalia denying the execution of the sale deed dated 8/2/1971 conveying 3 acres 3 guntas in Sy. No. 72/2 in favour o...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Arun Kumar and Others Vs. Shivanna and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
(Prayer: RFA filed U/s 96 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2010 passed in OS.No.314/2007 on the file of the senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, decreeing the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.) 1. The appellants are questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn). Devanahalli in OS No.314/2007 dated 23rd March 2010. The appellants were defendants in the suit. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs before the Court below. 2. Facts leading to this case are as hereunder: Under an agreement dated 16.06.2006 the defendants agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.25,50,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration and that the plaintiffs agreed to pay remaining consideration of Rs.15,50,000/- one day prior to the registration. 90 days was stipulated to complete the transaction. In order to enforce the agreement of sale dated 16.06...
Tag this Judgment!The Director, Karnataka Government Insurance Department Vs. G.V. Raju, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
(Prayer: 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.29154/1999 DATED 7-1-2002.)NAGARATHNA. J1. The Karnataka Government Insurance Department (hereinafter, referred to as the "KGID” for the sake of brevity) has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07/01/2002 passed in W.P.No.29154/99. By the said order, it has been held that the appellant herein, who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, is an "Industry", within the meaning of Section unamended 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as the “I.D.Act", for the sake of brevity).2. The relevant facts leading up to the filing of this appeal are that the Government of Karnataka being of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the workmen and management of the KGID, by order dated 26/10/1994, referred the following points of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, for ad...
Tag this Judgment!Shailesh and Another Vs. the State of Karnataka [Through Grameen Polic ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.P. is filed U/Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the Order dated 28.04.2011, passed in Crime No.76/2011 of Grameen Police Station, Gulbarga and release the petitioners on bail.) 1. The petitioners have challenged the Order dated 28,04.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed in the revision by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under: The petitioners are involved in Crime No.76/2011, Rural Police Station, Gulbarga, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 r/w. 149 IPC. The incident took place on 15.04.2011 in the noon hours and on 16.04.2011 the petitioners were arrested and produced before the Court on the same day. The learned Magistrate remanded the petitioners to the judicial custody till 28.04.2011. When the petitioners were produced before the Court from the judicial custody on 28.04.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioners filed ...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director. Bangalore Metro Railway Corporation Limited. Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
1. The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 177/2010 dated 21st November 2011 by the II Additional City Civil Judge. Bangalore.2. The appellant was respondent No.2 and respondent No. 1 was the claimant before the Reference Court. The property of the first respondent was notified for acquisition for the purpose of Metro Railway in Bangalore vide Preliminary Notification dated 31st January 2009. Final notification was gezetted on 16.10.2009. The possession of the property was taken on 10.12.2009. Thereafter an award was parsed determining the market value of the property acquired at Rs. 15,274/- per square meter. The first respondent being not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine the market value. Accordingly the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.3. In order to prove the contention of the first re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »