Karnataka Court January 2013 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.
Channaibhairayya Vs. the Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the Respondents to consider the representations dated 5.10.2007, 5.1.2007 and 9.5.2007 vide Annexures-M, N and P Respectively.) 1. This petition through listed for further orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order. 2. Petitioner claims to be a Power of Attorney holder of one Smt Latha under a registered General power of Attorney dated 11.10.1995 in respect of site No. 53 formed in Sy.No.46/1. According to the petitioner, the said Latha purchased land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy. No. 46/1 of Ullal village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 24.2.1995 executed by R. Veerabhadraiah S/o Rudrappa and formed a layout of sites on the basis of a layout plan Annexure ‘B’. The General Power of Attorney, It is said, covenants that the holder is empowered to c...
M/S. J.D. Clothing Company, Rep. by Its Managing Director Rajendra J. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
(Prayer: This writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act Praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition 46714/11 Dated 7 / 3/ 12.) Oral Judgment: Dilip B. Bhosale J. 1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 7.3.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in a group of 12 writ petitions, filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, whereby all the petitions were allowed and the orders dated 25.8.2011 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) came to be set aside. 2. The Tribunal, vide orders dated 25.8.2011 had set aside the order passed by the Provident Fund Authority (for short ‘P.F. Authority’) under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) whereby, the appellants-Employers were directed to remit the dues of their contribution towards the provident fund of their employees. 3...
Shaheen Khanam, and Others Vs. Mohd. Khaja Patel
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
(Prayer: This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1985, against the judgment dated 20.10.2010 passed in Crl.Misc.No.71/2009 on the file of the District Judge, Family Court at Gulbarga, wherein partly allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner No.1 is entitled to said enhance maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- from respondent from the date of filing the present petition and the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.500/- each from the date of filing the present petition till they attain the age of majority.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has been served and remains unrepresented. There is a delay of 49 days in filing the present petition. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. I.A.3/2012 is taken on record and allowed. 2. The petitioners are the wife and children of the respondent. Apparently, petitioner No.1 is estranged from her husband and is li...
Seetal Singh Vs. Satwinder Singh and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1. The second defendant had sought for stay of the proceedings on the ground that plea of tenancy is pending consideration. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for parties. 3. The second defendant had made an application to the Assistant, Commissioner, Pandavapura, under Sections 80 and 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 somewhere in the month of November 2012. 4. It is needless to state that Form 7-A should have been filed within the extended period under the relevant, provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act before the jurisdictional Tribunal. The defendant by filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura in the month of November 2012 cannot contend that plea of tenancy is pending and the Trial Court should not proceed with the suit. Therefore there is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed....
Micon Wires Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1. Learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents. 2. Heard. 3. Pursuant to E-Tender called for by the respondents for supply of barbed wire, G1 wire and G1 chain link, for the year 2012-13 vide tender Notification No. PCCF.C.CR.29-Mullu Thanthi.2012-13, the petitioner herein participated in the tender process. It seems that the petitioner’s bid is accepted in respect of 10 items as is clear from Annexure-B and the petitioner was called upon to furnish stamp paper as well as the bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of each of the units. According to the petitioner, he has submitted the stamp paper and asked for pro forma. However, no further action is taken by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the respondents to execute the agreement. 4. The prayer as sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The respondents cannot be compelled to execute the agreement. However, the respondents may be directed t...
Blue Line Video Games Associates Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1. Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents. 2. The petitioner is an association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The case of the petitioner-Association is that it is engaged in conducting sports and other cultural activities such as chess, carom, pool game, dart game, table tennis, billiards/snooker, six colour game, video game, joker bonus, cards club etc. and other indoor games for the benefit of its members. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are insisting that the petitioner should obtain licence either under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 or under the provisions of Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusement (Bangalore City) Order, 2002. 3. Identical questions have been considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18625 of 2005, disposed of on 27-1-2006 holding that permission under the Police Act is not required to run a Society or a Recreation Club of the present nature and the petitio...
Bajaj Allianz Genaral Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. K. Asok Raja ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
(Prayer: The Miscellaneous first Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 13/05/2007 and the file of the IX additional judge, court of small causes, member, MACT-7 Metropolitan area, Bangalore, (SCCH No. 7), awarding a compensation of Rs. 61,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of Petition till realisation. The Miscellaneous first Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 13/05/2008 passed in MVC No. 3225/2007 on the File of IX Additional Judge, Member, MACT-7 Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, SCCH-7 Partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation) 1. These two appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 13.05.2008 passed in MVC No. 3225/2007 on the file of MACT, Bangalore. Appeal in MFA 8982/2008 is filed by the second respondent-insurance company before the tribunal challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation. Whereas the appeal in...
Smt. Thimmavva Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Principal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the final notification of the 1st Respondent, The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-1, vide final notification dated 13.4.2010 and etc.) 1. Petitioner a land owner aggrieved by the preliminary notification Annexure ‘E’ issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short LA Act) in so far as it relates to proposal to acquire 5 guntas out of 37 guntas in Sy.No.84/1 of Amanikere village of Tumkur Taluk, and the final notification dated 5.4.2010 Annexure ‘H’ issued under Section 6(1) of the LA Act, as also the non-consideration of his representation dated 31.5.2010 Annexure ‘J’ by the 5th respondent, has presented this petition. 2. Facts as set out in the memorandum of writ petition are:- On the construction of Hemavathi channel, land ...
M/S. Kaveri Marketing, Proprietrix R. Hemalatha, Bangalore Vs. the Sar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by III Addl. CMM, Bangalore City, in Crl. Misc. No.5936/2012.) 1. Petitioner, who is respondent No.1 in Criminal Misc. No.5936/2012 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, is before this court under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 21.11.2012 made in the above-said case viz., Crl. Misc.5936/2012. 2. I have perused the file. 3. Registry has raised an objection as to maintainability of the Revision Petition. Case is posted for orders on Office objections i.e., as to maintainability of the Revision Petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner submits that in view of the order dated 3.5.2011 passed in Crl.RP No.525/2011 by this Court, Office objection is not maintainable. He further submits that since the trial Court has ...
Mrs. Jayalakshmi Vs. Mohan Patel and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1. The learned Trial Judge has permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit filed for partition in terms of the impugned order. Therefore, one of the defendants is before this Court. 2. The suit is filed for petition and separate possession of plaintiff’s half share in the suit schedule properties which are as many as eight in numbers. Item I is classified as ‘A Schedule property and remaining properties are classified as ‘B’ Schedule properties. The plaintiff tendered evidence and marked certain documents. During evidence, plaintiff produced the decrees made in O.S. No. 9 of 1985 and O.S. No. 553 of 1997 wherein, there is decree for partition of ‘B’ Schedule properties in favour of father of the plaintiff. 3. It was also brought to the notice of plaintiff that his father had executed an agreement of sale pursuant to 6th defendant had filed O.S. No. 43 of 2004 for specific performance of the agreement and the suit was decreed in respect of ‘A&#...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »