Karnataka Court May 2012 Judgments

Uma Mahesh, Mysore City Vs. Nethravathi, Mysore District

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2308

(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 19(1) of Hindu marriage Act and Section 104 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated: 18/12/2010 passed in M.C.No.241/2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Mysore, dismissing the petition filed u/s. 13(1)(1-a)(1-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.)1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 18th December 2010, passed in M.C.No.241/2008, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mysore, dismissing the petition filed by appellant, under Section 13(1)(1-a) and (1-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, on grounds of cruelty and desertion.2. The brief facts of the case on hand as set out in the petition are that, the appellant and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 4th May 2003, at Pandit Narayan Choultry, Mysore, as per the Hindu customs prevailing in their community. Thereafter, the respondent joined the company of the appellant...

Consortium of Medical Engineering and Dental Colleges of Karnataka (Co ...

Court: Karnataka

(These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the Order passed in the Writ Petition No.15921/2012 C/W WP.Nos.15917-15919/2012, WP.No.15922/2012, W.P.Nos.16168-16171/2012 and WP.Nos.16172-16174/2012 (EDN-RES) dated 25/05/2012.)Vikramajit Sen, C.J.1. These Appeals assail the Order of the learned Single Judge passed on 25.05.2012 allowing twelve Writ Petitions filed by persons who were the applicants for admission to the Postgraduate Dental Courses. The grievance which is ventilated is that though the Petitioners, all of whom are the Respondents before us, had the intention of participating in the First Counselling that was fixed for 19.05.2012, they were not accorded admission by the Appellant for one of the following four reasons. Firstly, that they have not furnished Demand Draft from the Nationalized Bank as per the notified requirement; or secondly, they have not produced counterfoils; or thirdly, the produced counterfoils did not ...

Madhuri Murthy. Vs. Mr.Shivakumar ChallA.

Court: Karnataka

1. The husband and wife have irreconcilable difference between them inasmuch as the petitioner -wife has initiated proceedings seeking dissolution of the marriage in M.C.No.1758/2005 on the file of the Family Court at Bangalore on the ground of cruelty and desertion. She has also initiated proceedings under the G & WC seeking custody of the minor child. It is not in dispute that the child is with the mother and the father is given visiting rights.2. After the initiation of the proceedings, both the petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution on the ground that the petitioner-wife was not present before the Judge during the course of proceedings. Applications were filed seeking restoration of the petitions. The said applications were rejected as against which the petitioner-wife was before this Court in a Miscellaneous First Appeal. petitions were restored to file.3. Mr.Appaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that on a concession made by respondent-husband appeals...

Ms. Sunrise Industries, Bangalore, Rep. by Its Managing Partner Vs. Su ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the award dated 14.3.2011 holding that the respondent is justified in demanding DA to the workmen w.e.f. 1.4.2000 as per the DA fixed by the State Government under the minimum wages notification as applicable to the Engineering Industries passed in ID No.10/2001 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore as per Annexure-A.)1. Petitioner-management is seeking for quashing of the award dated 14.3.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in ID No.10/2001 Annexure-A, whereunder, it has been held that respondent-Workers Association is justified in demanding Dearness Allowance to the workmen with effect from 1.4.2000 as per Dearness Allowance fixed by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Notification as applicable to the Engineering Industries.2. Heard Sri K. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri M.C. Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing fo...

Smt. M.K. Premalata @ Lalita Vs. Gangadhar

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(Prayer: This CCC is filed U/S. 11 and 12 of contempt of Courts Act, 1971 R/W. Article 215 of constitution of India, praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the Accused/Respondent for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of stay granted by this honorable court in M.F.A. No.20561/2010 dated.22/02/2010 as per Annexure C and punish the Accused appropriately for the Wanton Disobedience of the orders of this Honorable Court on such terms as this Honorable court may deem fit.) Ravi Malimath, J. 1. The marriage between the complainant and the accused was solemnized on 8.05.2004 at Hubli as per Hindu rites and customs. They led a married life thereafter. The accused, alleging that the complainant is having an adamant nature and quarrelling with him, filed petition under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act [for short the Act], seeking for divorce and dissolution of marriage in M.C. No. 50/2007 before the First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hubli. ...

Ajmera Housing Corporation. Vs. Mfar Constructions Private Limited a C ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The respondent No.1 has entered caveat, notice is waived, service is complete.2. Mr.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel submits that notice to respondent No.2 be dispensed with, as he is the Sole Arbitrator, Notice is dispensed with at petitioner s risk.3. Even though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent, it is taken up for final disposal.4. Shorn of details, the facts can be stated as under:The petitioner had under taken a project ol construction ol multi-storied residential apartments in Electronic City, Bangalore and the said project was known as Ajmera Infinity @ Neeladri. The petitioner had invited a tender for undertaking the civil works for the proposed Multi storied residential complex, which is developed by the petitioner. The tender of respondent No.1 has been accepted and it was reduced by way of a Memorandum of Understanding fixing the time schedule for completion of the said project with a default clause.5. Suffice it to note that the petitioner termi...

Smt P Gulabi. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. This is a landlord's petition challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mudabidri on 4.11.2010 - Annexure K.2. According to the petitioner's counsel, as per the lease deed, the total extent is 13.69 acres which has been let out way back in the year I960, There are three items which are not included in the lease deed and it was also not subject matter of lease/tenancy as is observed by the Chairman. But, only on the ground that some amount of geni by way of rice is given, majority of the members have come to the conclusion that those properties were also the subject matter of tenancy and accordingly.granted occupancy rights to the extent of 20.57 acres in stead of 13.69 acres.3. According to the contesting respondent, the survey numbers which are included in the lease deed have been taken into consideration and, also taking into consideration the excess geni being paid on the basis of cultivation of some other properties, majority members have taken a view which is in order ...

The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Chief Secretary, Government of Kar ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in Original Application No.545/11 vide Annexure-A and etc.)1. These two writ petitions are preferred challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, declaring the empanelment and selection of third respondent as void, invalid, arbitrary and illegal as a result of non-application of mind and due to deliberate suppression of materials facts and consequently quashing both the empanelment of the third respondent as a candidate eligible for consideration and Annexure-A1-notification appointing him as DG and IGP.2. The petition in W.P.8788/12 is preferred by the State Government and W.P.9655/12 is preferred by the third respondent in the said writ petition challenging the said order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to ...

Syndicate Bank, Manipal, Udupi Taluk, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managin ...

Court: Karnataka

Vikramajit Sen, C.J.1. The writ petitioners who are respondents before us, were Bank Officers who had retired between 01.07.1993 and 31.10.1994. The Five Year Bipartite Settlement had by then expired on 01.11.1992. After extensive parleys a Joint Note dated 23.06.1995 was signed on the ‘Conclusion of Discussions between Indian Banks Association and the Officers’ Organisation’. Clause 7 thereof dealt with Gratuity and stipulated thus-“As the consensus reached, gratuity computed in terms of the Officers’ Service Regulations to be now amended shall be recalculated and difference paid only to such eligible officer employees who cease to be in the Bank’s service on or after 01.11.1994. No arrears on account of gratuity shall be payable to officers who ceased to be in Bank’s service prior to 01.11.1994.” The writ petitioners have successfully challenged the treatment meted out to them as they have been placed beyond the purview of the Settlemen...

Ms. Atalanta Pumps Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. Mrs. Kunda J. Majli, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2160

(Prayer: This counsel for the appellant has filed the above appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the Company Judge in Company Petition No.121 of 2009.)1. A short order leading to long arguments based on innumerable authorities. The order under appeal is one under Sec.483 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Sec.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, dt.10-2-2010 which reads as under:“Admit,Advertisement deferred.”2. This is an order passed in a Company Petition filed by the respondent herein under the provisions of Sec.433 (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) for winding up of the respondent-Company on the premise that respondent-Company is unable to pay its admitted debts.3. The Company Petition has been listed before the learned Company Judge on 3-2-2010, after issue of notice to the respondent-Company. The learned Company Judge had directed ...