Karnataka Court September 2012 Judgments
Devaki Vs. U. Soma Gowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
This WA is filed under Sec. 4 of The Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the order passed in WP No.26309/2005 dated 17.11.2008. MANJUNATH J. 1. Appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.26309/2005 dated 17.11.2008 wherein the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by R-1 and remanded the matter to the competent authority to consider the application filed by R-1 under Sec.77-A (Form No.7-A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 2. This case has a chequered career. The parties are knocking the doors of this court by filing writ petitions and writ appeals in three rounds. 3. Facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder: Father of R-1 late Shivappa Gowda was a tenant under the husband of the appellant herein in respect of 8 lands in Sy.Nos.151 and 153 of Koyyuru village of Belthangady Taluk. After the death of father of R-1, R-1's mother Seethu Hengsu filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Belthangady...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Thimmaiah Vs. Smt. T.M. Rukimini and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(Prayer: This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC against the judgement and decree dated 1.8.2005 and etc.) 1. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2005 passed by the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.3298/1988, decreeing the suit in part and directing defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization. 2. Appellant herein was defendant No.2 before the Trial Court. Defendant No.1 having died during the course of trial, his legal representatives had been brought on record. They have not chosen to file any appeal. As regards defendant No.3, the suit has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming damages in a sum of Rs.60,000/- alon...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Hubli Vs. Manjamma and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 23.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Bellary in case No. CR 46/ 2006. 2. One Pujari Anand was tightening the angular bolt, with his spanner, on bridge No.7 near Tharangar Narihalli Dam on 01.06.2002. When he lost the grip of the spanner, the spanner fell down. He also lost the balance and fell into the river from a height of about 40 feet. On the respondent No.1 (the wife of the deceased) filing the claim petition, the Commissioner awarded the compensation of Rs.4,15,960/-. 3. This appeal is filed by the South Central Railways Divisional Manager. Sri Ajay U. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no master-servant relationship between the appellant and the deceased. No documents whatsoever are produced to show that the deceased was employed by the Railways, that there was any contract by the Railways with the respondent No.2 and that the deceased was employ...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Nagaraj. Vs. C.H. Rudrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(This Crl.R.P. is filed under S.397 and 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the Court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Davanagere in C.C.No.463/2009 and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.79/2011.)Order:The respondent filed a complaint under S.200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner alleging commission of an offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1381 (for short, the Act), as the cheque Ex.P1 dated 01.02.2006 for Rs.1,50,000/- issued in his favour was dishonoured by the bank vide Ex.P2 with remark account closed. Respondent had issued a notice / Ex.P3 demanding payment of the said cheque amount. Since payment was not made, complaint/Ex.P7 was filed.2. Petitioner appeared and when the accusation was put to him, pleaded not guilty and during trial, complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and examined R. Jayappa as PW-2 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. Accused Petitioner was exami...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Nagaraj Vs. C.H. Rudrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(This Crl.R.P. is filed under S.397 and 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the Court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Davanagere in C.C.No.463/2009 and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.79/2011.) Order: The respondent filed a complaint under S.200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner alleging commission of an offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1381 (for short, ‘the Act’), as the cheque Ex.P1 dated 01.02.2006 for Rs.1,50,000/- issued in his favour was dishonoured by the bank vide Ex.P2 with remark ‘account closed’. Respondent had issued a notice / Ex.P3 demanding payment of the said cheque amount. Since payment was not made, complaint/Ex.P7 was filed. 2. Petitioner appeared and when the accusation was put to him, pleaded not guilty and during trial, complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and examined R. Jayappa as PW-2 and marked Exs.P1 to P8....
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Executive Engineer Vs. the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Ap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records on the file of R1, Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority, Bangalore in respect of appeal No.UKA-2/PGA/CR-86/11-12 and etc.) 1. Applications are filed for impleading the State in all the petitions. The said applications are not opposed by the respondents. Accordingly, IA.2/2012 in WP Nos.15856/12, 15857/12, 15854/12 and 15853/12 and IA No.1/2012 in WP Nos.8421/12 and 8420/12 are allowed. Petitioner is permitted to implead the State as respondent No.4 in all the writ petitions. 2. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No.4 in all the writ petitions. 3. The petitioner – Assistant Executive Engineer, Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Ltd. has filed these writ petitions inter-alia calling in question the order of the Controlling Authority dated 28.2.2011 confirmed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 14.2.2012 under the...
Tag this Judgment!Rudrappa Vs. H.R. Shivakumar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: This RFA is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Sec.96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005 passed in O.S. 127/2000 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Davangere decreeing the suit for cancellation of Redg., partition deed and partition and separate possession.) V. Suri Appa Rao J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005 in O.S. No. 127/2000 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit against the appellant and others for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds after cancelling the registered partition deed dated 29.12.1969. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the original suit. 2. The plaintiffs are the son and daughter of the third defendant Ramachandrappa, who is the son of defendant No.1 through his first wife Gangamma. After the death...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shivaramu, I.A.S. Vs. the Chief Secretary to Govt and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
(Prayer: This WA is filed under Sec.4 of The Karnataka High Court to set aside the order passed in WP No.11732/2004 dated 26.4.2011.) 1. Legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.11732/2004 dated 26.4.2011 is called in question in this appeal. Appellant was the petitioner before the learned single Judge. 2. Writ petition was filed by the appellant to quash Annexure-E dated 8.3.2004 circular issued by the State of Karnataka withdrawing permission granted to the Government servants to participate in motion pictures and Television Serials etc., Earlier the Government had granted permission to act in motion pictures and Television Serials to a Government servant subject to prior permission, which has now been withdrawn by the Government under the circular in question prohibiting the Government employee from acting in motion pictures and Television serials. Withdrawal the permission was questioned by the appellant before the learned single Judge. Lear...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Elevators and Escalators India Private Limited Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 24.11.2011 vide Annexure-A, etc.) 1. The order at Annexure-A, dated 24.11.011, by which the petitioner herein is directed under Section 22(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to change its name within a period of three months from the date of the impugned order, is called in question in this writ petition. 2. The third respondent-company, i.e., Surya Elevators Private Limited was incorporated on 6.10.2005 with an authorised share capital of Rs.5,00,000/- which was divided equally between Mr.C.S.Surendranadha Reddy and Mr. K. Arunachalam (who is presently the Managing Director of respondent No.3) in the ratio of 2500 shares each. Respondent No.3 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of passenger and freight elevators. 3. Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated on 29.11...
Tag this Judgment!L. Shankaramurthy and Others Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
1. All these petitions are under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the grounds urged by the respective petitioners being common and the contentions put forward by the learned Counsel for the parties also being common to these petitions, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, it has to be mentioned that, this Court had granted interim stay of the proceedings and I.A. to vacate stay is also filed by the respondent-Lokayukta in all these petitions and therefore this Court heard learned Counsel Sri M.S. Bhagwat for the petitioners and Smt. T.M. Gayathri for the respondent-Lokayukta on the merits of these petitions. 3. The facts common to all these petitions are that, cases were registered against the respective petitioners herein under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. by the Lokayukta Police in respect of the offence under Sections 8 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short). F...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›