Karnataka Court April 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.
Vokkaligara Sangha, by Its General Secretary, Dr. K. Mahadev Vs. the B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
(This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the resolution on subject No.149/2009 dated 8.5.2009 passed by respondent No.1 allotting the Civil Amenity Site No.1, in Nagarbhavi layout, 2nd Stage, 2nd Block, Bangalore, to the 2nd respondent and direct 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 27.2.2009 to allot site No.1, Nagarabhavi Layout, 2nd Phase, 2nd Block, Bangalore to it as per Annexure-B etc.) 1. The petitioner, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and an ‘Institution’ as defined in Rule 2(d) of BDA (Allotment of Civil Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 (for short, the Rules), has filed this writ petition questioning the decision of Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’) in allotting Civic Amenity Site No.1, Nagarabhavi Layout, II Stage, II Block, Bangalore, in favour of the 2nd respondent - Mitra Wrunda Youth Association , Bangalor...
Ningamma, Wo.SiddappA. Vs. Sri.KotrappA. Son of Kwaleppa at NingappA. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
ANANDA BYRAREDDY, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.3. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of half share in Suit Schedule "A" ‘B' and 'C properties. It was the plaintiffs case that one Rudrappa had two daughters, namely, Ningamma and Kotramma. Ningamma was married to Channabasappa and Kotramma was married to Kurleppa @ Ningappa. Since Rudrappa had no male issues, both his sons-in-law came to reside along with him and his daughters. Rudrappa had died seventy years prior to the suit and was survived by Ningamma and Kotramma. Basavanneppa, is said to be the son of Ningamma. Ningamma had died about three years after the death of Rudrappa. Basavanneppa was her sole legal heir. He was a young child at the time of his mother's death and had remained under the care arid protection of...
Bharat Fritz Werner Karmika SanghA. Vs. Management of Bharat Fritz Wer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Award dated 19.10.2005, Annexure-A and the order dated 13.3.2002, Annexure-F in I.D.No.85/1999 passed by the industrial Tribunal at Bangalore.2. Respondent is a company engaged in manufacture of machine tools. Petitioner is the registered trade union representing the employees in the respondent company. Respondent company denied to the workers bonus/ex-gratia payment for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 to the workmen who went on illegal strike for a period of 11 days in 1996 and for a period of 85 days in the year 1997. Aggrieved by this denial of bonus/ex-gratia, petitioner union initiated conciliation proceedings and the same ended in referring the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication and the same came to be registered as I.D.No.85/1999. The points referred for adjudication are as under:Whether the Bharat Fritz Warner Limited, Peenya Worker- Union's demand for payment of 20% ex-gra...
M/S. Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Min ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CJ. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in full detail. The Petitioner prays for a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Central Government dated 31.05.2011 rejecting the request of the State Government for seeking approval for reservation of 16109.61 hectares in Raichur district (henceforward called the ‘said land’) Under Section 17A (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [‘MMDR Act’ for brevity]. This request was held to be devoid of merit and accordingly was rejected. The State Government was to consider the pending requests of the contesting respondents’ application for grant of a Prospecting Licence expeditiously. The litigation comes with a jural history, inasmuch as, the very same parties were before the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 39969/2010 connected with Writ Petition No. 39970/2010, field by the Petitioner. By the Judgment dated 18.02.2011, t...
Janekere C. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside/quash the appointment of respondent No.3 as Upa Lok Ayukta and direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to appoint a Upa Lok Ayukta after following the mandate in Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 within a time frame as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and etc.,) 1. These two writ petitions are filed by two advocates challenging the appointment of Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retired) as Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. They are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed to in Writ Petition Nos.4852-53/2012. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. One Sri. Janekere C. Krishna, an Advocate is the Petitioner in W.P.No.4852-53/2012, whereas Sri. Ananda Murthy R., an Advocate, is the petitioner in W.P.No.4962/2012. They have pleaded...
M.K. Premalata @ Lalita Vs. Gangadhar
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
1. The legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed in M.C. No.50/2007 on 06.01.2010 by the First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubli is called in question in the instant appeal. 2. The respondent filed a petition for grant of decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage solemnised on 08.05.2004 between the parties herein at Gangadhar Nagar, Hubli under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion and cruelty. 3. According to the petition averments, the marriage was solemnised on 08.05.2004. They lived happily at Hubli till 20.12.2004. According to him, the wife is of adamant nature; she used to quarrel with him without any reason and same treatment was extended to his family members; she was not co-operative with him; she always used to use filthy language; she was very-very cruel and rude to him; she is a short-tempered lady; she was insulting him and his parents, and she was also proclaiming that she has no intention to lead marital...
Dr.L.Prashanth. Mbbs. Dmrp Son of V.Lakshminarayan. and anr. Vs. State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
N. ANANDA, J.1. This petitioners have filed this petition to quash Crime No.345/2009. The II-respondent is the first informant.2. The inter se relationship of parties and certain facts which are not in dispute are stated thus:Petitioner No.2 is the husband of sister of II-respondent. Petitioner No.1 is the son of petitioner No.2. On 10.09.1999. II-respondent constituted a trust called "Shushruthi Education Trust" under a registered trust deed. The II-respondent is the author of the trust. The primary object of the trust was to promote education and establish educational institutions.The following were the trustees:-TRUSTEESi. Shri N.Srinivasa Murthy. S/o Sri N.Narayanappa. aged about 47 Years, residing at No.418/02. 6th Main Road. 4th Cross, Wilson Garden. Bangalore 560 027.ii. Dr.L.Prashanth S/o Shri V.Lakshminarayana, aged about 26 Years, residing at No.515. Padmanabhanagar, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore 560 070.iii. Smt.Dharini Devi, D/o late B.S.V.Naidu, aged about 39 Years, res...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle and Another Vs. M/S. San ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 29.09.2005 passed in ITA No.256/Bang/2002, for the assessment year 1996-97 praying to set aside the said order of the Tribunal and etc.) D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) directed against the affirmation order dated 29-09-2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’, in ITA No.256/Bang/2002, dismissing the appeal of the revenue before the tribunal. 2. The assessee is a partnership firm and the assessment year is 1996-97. The assessee had filed its return disclosing an income of Rs.4,68,340/-. This income had been disclosed in the original return and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. The assessing officer reopened the assessment, particularly as it was found that there was a cash credit entry for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, as disclosed i...
Byramma Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
1. Heard Sri Fakrulla Khan, Party-in-person appearing on behalf of petitioner as GPA Holder and Sri Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. Petitioner has questioned the order passed by first respondent dated 23-3-2009 whereunder it has been held that name of the petitioner in the revenue records is to be deleted in respect of land bearing Sy.No.40/P23 measuring 4 acres situated at Bandikodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, on the ground that entries in revenue records is unauthorised entry without there being any valid grant Order passed by Competent Authority. 3. A perusal of impugned order dated 23-3-2009 Annexure-A would go to show that thee is violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice served on the respondent before impugned order was passed and it has been served on one Sri Lakshmaiah, who is son of petitioner herein. As to whether the said Sri Lakshmaiah was authorised to receive notice on behalf of Smt. Byramma or not, no...
Hanumakka Vs. Sharadamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
1. Plaintiff’s second appeal calling in question the divergent findings of the Courts below. While the Trial Court allowed the suit for declaration, partition and separate possession, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit. 2. Appellant instituted O.S.No.15 of 2004 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, for declaration, partition and separate possession of Suit Schedules A, B and C immovable properties and Schedule ‘D’ movable properties of her deceased father by name Hanumanthaiah who left behind the defendant by name Basamma, his 2nd wife. According to the plaintiff, being the only child born to Hanumanthaiah from out of the wedlock with one Nanjamma, the 1st wife, however with Basamma the 2nd wife, had be gotten 4 children of which one was male and 3 females constituting a joint Hindu undivided family. Thus being no partition of the ancestral properties and the father having died intestate, without leaving a Will, sought partition of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »