Karnataka Court September 2012 Judgments
ismail Vs. Abdul Rahiman and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
(Prayer: This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prays that this Honourable Court be pleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) and CJM, Mangalore, D.K. District in O.S. No.208/1994 dated 17.08.2005 and further be pleased to allow this appeal.) V. SURIAPPA RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 17th August 2005 in O.S. No.208/1994 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) and CJM, Mangalore. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their share and for mesne profits. The Trial Court decreed the suit for partition and for mesne profits. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant No.1 filed this appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the children of late Iddikunhi through his second wife ...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Another Vs. U ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the Annex-E, dated 28.1.11 passed in Exe. Pet. 2272/2010 on the file of City Civil Judge CCH 18.) 1. All these six writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. The parties will be referred to with reference to their ranking before the Facilitation Council. 3. Three applications were filed under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short ‘Micro Act’). Respondent No.2 therein i.e., the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘KPTCL’) had invited tenders for supply of Weasel and Rabbit ACSR conductors of different quantity and varieties. The applicants had submitted their bid for the said tender and offered to supply conductors to the respondent. The applicants had submitted their letter of offer on 01.05.2001 and had offered to supply 1000 kw of weas...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Pushpa and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
(Prayer: THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.8.2010 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3353/2009 ANNEXURE A BY THE HONOURABLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.) N. KUMAR J. 1. All these petitions are taken up for consideration together as the questions of law involved are one and the same. For the purpose of convenience, the parties in these petitions would be referred to as they are arrayed in the applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. 2. All the petitioners are diploma holders in Health Inspector course conducted by Para Medical Board, Directorate of Medical Education. They are qualified and eligible to be appointed to the post of Junior Health Assistant (Male) in the department of Health and Family Welfare Services. The second respondent - Directorate of Karnataka, Health and Family Welfare Department, issued a notification calling for posts of Junior Health Assistants (Male) ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Manjula Vs. Gagandeep Singh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the office of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore in Ex.P.779/12 and to quash Annexure-A dtd. 4.7.2012 passed in adjourning the matter for unlimited period on the ground SLP is pending before Supreme Court, etc.) 1. The petition coming on for Orders, as regards issuance of notice to the respondent, the complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of his best efforts, the respondent is dodging the service of notice and that permission was granted to serve notice of this petition on the counsel appearing for the respondent before the Executing Court, where proceedings are pending. The Counsel for the respondent, however, has refused service. 2. There was an order of eviction passed under Section 27 (2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and the same having been affirmed by this Court in revision, challenging the order of evi...
Tag this Judgment!Govardhan M and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by the S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 9.4.10 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in Application No.616/2007 vide Annexure -A and dismiss the application No.616/2007 filed by the R.4 herein with cost and etc.,) N. KUMAR J. 1. All these writ petitions are preferred challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal holding that substitution of the provision relating to the upper age limit under 2009 Rules is retrospective in operation and therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the prescription of upper age limit under 2009 Rules. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to the in the applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 invited applications under the Karnataka State Police Service (including Ministerial Services) Recruitment Rules, 2004 (for shor...
Tag this Judgment!Anantharaju and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, by Huliyurdurga Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.R.P. is filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the impugned order dated 16.8.2012 passed on application filed under S.311 Cr.P.C, by the accused/petitioners and allow the application consequently pleased to order to recall PW-1 and 6 for their further cross examination in SC No.256/2010 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur.) 1. Petitioners are facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Ss.498-A and 304-B IPC, in S.C.No.256/2010, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. 27 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Accused filed an application under S.311 Cr.P.C, to recall PW.1/complainant, father of the deceased and PW.6/mother of the deceased, for the purpose of further cross-examination. Said application was opposed by the prosecution by filing statement of objections. Learned Trial Judge passed an order of rejection. This Criminal Revision Petition filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C...
Tag this Judgment!Gowramma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
N. Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal declining to entertain the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is she married the deceased Guddappa after he obtained divorce from his first wife on 17.1.1983. Guddappa died on 27.12.1996. She filed an application on 30.7.1997 for compassionate appointment on the ground that she is the legally wedded second wife. The authorities issued an endorsement on 14.9.1988 stating that she should obtain a succession certificate as Lingaraju, son through the first wife is denying here marriage. Subsequently, the said endorsement came to be withdrawn on 14.11.2000 but she was not given appointment. Therefore, she filed the application seeking for setting aside the endorsement as well as for a direction to consider her representation for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal has declined to entertain the said applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwini Kumar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Higher ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
(These W.Ps are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to allow this writ petition and issue a writ of certiorai or any other appopriate writ or order or direction to quash the circular bearing no date: 22 ACM (2). 2012-13 dated 24/07/2012 issued by the 2nd Respondent produced at Annexure-A.) 1. Petitioners are students studying in Nittur Polytechnic College, Bidar, Government Polytechnic College, Bidar, Government Polytechnic College, Aurad (B), Yadgir Polytechnic College, Yadgir and Niveditha Polytechnic College, Yadgir in different branches of Diploma Courses which colleges are controlled by second respondent. Petitioners-1 to 13 claim to have completed their course in fourth semester and were anticipating to be admitted to fifth semester and petitioner No.14 is seeking admission to third semester after having completed course in second semester. 2. Petitioners are seeking for quashing of the Circular dated 24.07.2012 Annexure-A issued by second respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Coal (India) Limited, Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory, Sumith R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to accept the Techno Commercial Bid submitted by the petitioners which satisfy all the pre-qualification requirement and eligibility criteria of the tender document and permit the petitioners to participate in the online bidding cum reverse auction process etc.,)1. The Respondent No.1 KIOCL Limited (formerly Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited) is a wholly owned Government of India Enterprise established for the development of mines and plant facilities to produce iron ore etc., KIOCL floated an invitation to Tender dated 12.1.2012 and invited offers from interested parties for providing end to end logistics solution for transportation of 15,00,000 tones of iron ore from NMDC Mines at Kirandul and Bacheli (10/11A deposit) to the KIOCL Pellet Plant stock yard at Mangalore via Kakinada Deep Water Port and New Mangalore Port by rail cum sea route over a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Coal (India) Limited, Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory, Sumith R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to accept the Techno – Commercial Bid submitted by the petitioners which satisfy all the pre-qualification requirement and eligibility criteria of the tender document and permit the petitioners to participate in the online bidding cum reverse auction process etc.,) 1. The Respondent No.1 – KIOCL Limited (formerly Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited) is a wholly owned Government of India Enterprise established for the development of mines and plant facilities to produce iron ore etc., KIOCL floated an invitation to Tender dated 12.1.2012 and invited offers from interested parties for providing end to end logistics solution for transportation of 15,00,000 tones of iron ore from NMDC Mines at Kirandul and Bacheli (10/11A deposit) to the KIOCL Pellet Plant stock yard at Mangalore via Kakinada Deep Water Port and New Mangalore Port by rail cum sea route...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »