Karnataka Court February 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.
Narasappa Vs. State of Karnataka, Represented by Its Principal Secreta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
(This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 8.2.2012 passed by the learned principal senior civil judge, Shimoga in L.A. Misc. 62/2007 in so far as dismissing the reference application filed u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act vide Annexure-E and quash the order dated 30.9.2006 issued by second respondent in Misc. No.37/2006-07 vide Annexure-C.) 1. Petitioner's immovable property when acquired under an agreement followed by the petitioner executing Form-D under Rule 10-B of the Land Acquisition Rules and having agreed to part with the property for a public purpose, led to issue of an award notice dt.15.5.2006 under Subsection (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'Act' Annexure-A. It appears that the petitioner filed an application dt. 19.9.2006 Annexure-B to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute over enhancement of compensation under Section 18 to the Civil Court. That...
G.V. Sathish Vs. K.R. Vadiraja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated: 08.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.3139/2008 on the file of the XX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for recovery of money and etc.) This appeal is by the defendant in O.S.No.3139/2008 on the file of the XX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, for getting over the judgment and decree that the defendant had suffered where under the suit of the plaintiff had been decreed a money claim for the sum of Rupees 22 Lakhs with interest etc. 2. After issue of notice, respondent is served and represented by counsel. 3. Further, during the pendency of the appeal, parties had taken time to report settlement in the matter between them and a compromise petition has placed before the Court under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. The terms of the settlement reads as under: "COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE O...
Smt. S.P. Mahadevamma Vs. the Commissioner Bangalore Development Autho ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25.8.2007 vide Annexure-H issued by the respondent.) The petitioner's application - Annexure-A dated 10.10.2003 fructified into an allotment of site no.1070 in IV T Block, Further Extension of BSK VI Stage measuring 6 X 9 metres (EWS) under allotment letter dated 5.2.2004 - Annexure-B, following which the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority issued a NOC dated 04.02.2004 - Annexure-C permitting the petitioner to mortgage the property allotted for raising a loan to meet the value of the site being Rs.56,700/-. The Bangalore Development Authority having noticed the vacillatory statements made over the income of the petitioner, both, in the application and the certificate, called upon the petitioner to appear before the authority for an explanation over the said statements, by endorsement dated 16.12.2005 - Annexure-D, to which the petitioner address...
Dr. S. Ananthalakshmi Vs. National Board of Examination Ministry of He ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 9.9.2011 - annexure L and order dated 31.10.2011 - annexure M by the 1st respondent, etc.) Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 9.9.2011 - annexure L and 31.10.2011 - annexure M by the 1st respondent and also for a direction to the 1st respondent to permit her to complete DNB training programme in accordance with the allotment of seat made in her favour in the year 2006. Petitioner having completed MBBS course, having appeared for Common Entrance Test conducted by the National Board of Examination, was issued with a qualifying certificate to under take training leading to a degree/diploma of National Board and accordingly, she joined Kidwai Institute of Oncology and was admitted to DNB course in Radio Diagnosis. During September 2007, she suffered illness and under went intensive care treatment. Later, after marriage she had been to the United States of America and there...
Mrs. Kamala Krishnamurthy and Another Vs. the Karnataka State Finance ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 9.7.2012 in Misc.No.513/2005 on the file of the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 38), Bangalore City, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-D, and the said I.A. filed by the petitioners u/s.151 of CPC r/w. Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 be allowed as prayer for vide Annexure-B.) Petitioners have made an application before the Court below in Misc.No.513/2005 for dismissing the said miscellaneous petition on the ground that the matter in dispute between the parties is pending consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and therefore the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. 2. The petitioners relied upon the provisions of Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) in support of their case. Section 34 of SARFAESI ...
J.R. Prasanna Vs. the State of Karnataka by the Police of Somawarpet P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.151/2012 of Somwarpet P.S., Kodagu, which is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of IPC.) Petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.153/13 have been arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 while petitioner in Crl.P.No.399/13 has been arraigned as accused No.2 in C.C.No.151/12 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), JMFC, Somwarpet registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners in these two petitions filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure have sought for an order to enlarge them on bail in connection with the aforesaid case. 2. According to the case of the prosecution CW10- Girish H.K., resident of Honavali village, Somwarpet Taluk lodged a report at about 7.30 p.m. on 8.9.2012 based on which case came to be registered in crime No.151/12 against unknown persons and investigation ...
B.L. Santosh Vs. the Bangalore University, Represented by the Registra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed U/s.4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition No.27793/2012(EDN-AD), dated 25/08/2012.) The appellant challenges the order dated 25th August 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition whereby he sought direction to the first respondent to readmit him to 7th and 8th semesters of the B.E. degree course in Computer Science in respondent No.2-College. 2. There is no dispute that after 2001-02, the appellant abandoned the course, in the sense, till filing of the writ petition, he did not attend the classes. Having regard thereto, Mr.Vishnu Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent invited our attention to regulation OB-6.2 of the Regulations Governing the B.E. Degree Course and B.Arch Degree Courses (Revised Semester Scheme)-2001-2002 to contend that the appellant cannot be granted the relief as prayed for. The Regulation OB 6.2 reads thus: “OB 6.2: The candidate sha...
Mohan Murali Traders, Chikkaballapura District Vs. State of Karnataka, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 25.1.2011 passed by R2 vide Annexure-A in so far as petitioner is concerned.) The court made the following: In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.1.2011, Annexure-A passed by the second respondent refusing to give approval for allotment of site in favour of the petitioner in the market yard of Chikkaballapur. 2. Petitioner is a wholesale business man in the notified agricultural product in the third respondent market yard. Petitioner is the holder of a license to do the business in the market yard. Petitioner do not own any site or building in the market yard. Further the petitioner do not suffer any disqualification for allotment of site. In the circumstances, the third respondent allotted site in favour of petitioner as per Annexure-C dated 11.05.2010. The third respondent forwarded the allo...
K.L. Nataraju Vs. State of Karnataka, by Chikkanayakanahalli Police, T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.190/12 of Chikkanayakanahalli P.S., Tumkur, for the offences punishable under Section 498a of IPC and u/s 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. ) Apprehending his arrest by Chikkanayakanahalli Police in connection with case in Crime No.190/12 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code and U/S 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, petitioner has presented this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of Anticipatory Bail. 2. The petitioner is the husband of complainant Smt.Savitha. Their marriage was solemnized on 09.02.2011. The said Smt.Savitha said to have lodged a report at about 7.30 p.m. on 3.12.12 alleging that after the marriage for about two months she was looked after well by her husband and thereafter her husband started demanding her to get money and by force he obtained a sum of Rs.10,0...
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented Throug ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
(Prayer: Tq and Dist: Bagalkot. ... Respondents This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988, praying to set aside the award dated 5.9.2012 made in MVC.534/2010 by the MACT-II, Bagalkot, and etc.) 1. Though this matter is listed for consideration of the application for condonation of delay, I have nevertheless heard the learned Counsel for appellant on merits. 2. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and award of the Tribunal (MACT- II), Bagalkot, dated 5.9.12 passed in MVC.534/2010 on the question of liability. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that, on 20.09.2009, one Laxman Arakeri was proceeding on his bicycle on Jamkhandi-Mudhol road, when at that time, a maxicab bearing Reg.No.KA.29/A.1902 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Laxman. As a result he sustained injuries. He died on 30.03.2010. He was 46 years of age at the time of his death and was eking his livelihood as coolie. Contending that they had lost the bread-e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »