Karnataka Court January 2014 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.
T. Dhilshathu Beegam Vs. the Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
1. This petition preferred by the petitioner is directed against the order dated 11-6-2013 passed in O.A.No.809 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, declining to interfere with Annexure-A1, the transfer order, wherein the petitioner has been transferred from Bangalore to Delhi. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she joined as Scientific Officer in Southern Region of Atomic Minerals Directorate, Bangalore on 18-9-2003. She was promoted to the grade of Scientific Officer-D on 1-8-2008. The respondents vide Annexure-A1, dated 5-9-2012 transferred her from Bangalore to Delhi along with other officers, which comprised of four lady officers also to different places. It is her case that she had made allegations against her immediate Superior Officer, in response to which a Committee was constituted to look into the said allegations wherein the Committee found that the allegations made by her were true. On account of the same, she has been victimise...
The Registrar, Office of the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Vs. Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by 1st respondent in proceeding dated 8.9.2011 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto at Annexure-F and the order dated 9.2.2012 vide Annexure-J passed by 1st respondent in complaint No.1676/2011.) 1. The 2nd respondent herein “ Mr. A.R. Vishwanatha, submitted an application, on 05.12.2010, before the City Public Information Officer, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, the designated officer, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the Act), seeking œinformation and certified copies of Assets and Liabilities statements submitted to the Karnataka Lokayukta, by all sitting MLAs, MLCs, BBMP Corporators and also to provide statements filed by MLAs with reference to various criminal cases pending before the various Courts of Government of Karnataka, against MLAs?. The designated authority informed the 2nd respondent/applicant, as per Rule 14 of the Kar...
H. Eraiah and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary notification dated 15.11.2000 bearing No.BDA/SLAO/A4- PR/192;2000-2001 marked as Annexure-C and quash final notification dated 21.8.2001 bearing No.UDD/274/MNX/2001 marked as Annexure-D and etc;) 1. The petitioners are said to be owners of lands bearing Survey Nos.2/1 and 6/2, measuring 24 guntas and 28 guntas, respectively, of Gankallu village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore. The same are said to have been converted for non-agricultural use as per orders of the competent authority, dated 3.8.2001. The said lands are said to have been notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity). A preliminary notification is said to have been issued as on 15.11.2000, proposing to acquire the same for the formation of the BSK VI Stage Layout. Though the petitioners claim to have filed object...
Gangambika and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep by Its Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Government order bearing No.KoE 81 BuSwaBe 2005 dated 29.10.2007 [Annexure- H] and also quash the notification dated 11.9.1996 [wrongly printed as 1966] issued under Section 16(2) of the LA Act (Annexure-D) and also the Mahazar dated 27.8.1995 prepared by the Revenue Inspector, Yelahanka (Annexure-J) in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners i.e. Sy.No.30 (1 acre 14 guntas) and Sy.No.34/1 (1 acre 37 guntas) of Shivanhalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and etc;) 1. The petitioners are said to be the owners of lands bearing Survey no.30, measuring 2 acres and 14 guntas and land bearing Survey no.34/1, measuring 2 acres and 7 guntas situated at Shivanahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. 2. It is stated that by a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act', for brevity) dated 3...
M/S. Uttam Distilleries Ltd. and Another Vs. the Directorate of Sugar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
(Prayer: These Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Order Dated 18.2.2010 Passed By Respondent No.1 Produced At Annexure-N, Quash The Order Dated 22.6.2010 Passed By The Respondent No.3 Produced At Annexure-Ae, Quash The Order Dated 14.7.2010 Passed By The Respondent No.3 Produced At Annexure-Ag And Quash The Order Dated 5.8.2010 Passed By 1st Respondent Produced At Annexure-Aj, ETC.) 1. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the orders dated 18.02.2010 and 05.08.2010, vide Annexure-N and AJ respectively, passed by the 1st respondent and the orders dated 22.06.2010 and 14.07.2010, vide Annexures - AE and AG respectively, passed by the 3rd respondent and for issue of a direction to the 3rd respondent, to issue Distance Certificate to the 1st petitioner, without taking into consideration the application filed by the 5th respondent and for directing the 3rd respondent, to endorse the Distance Certificate dated 15.03.2007, in th...
T. Krishnappa Vs. T.G. Ramachandra Guptha and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying o quash the impugned order dtd.29.3.11 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri in M.A.21/2005 vide Annex-G, confirming the order dtd.23.2.2005 passed by the Principal Civil Jude (Jr. Dn.), Madhugiri on I.A.9 and 10 in Ex.11/2000 vide Annex-E.) ORDER 1. The petitioner who is Judgment Debtor in Execution No.11/2000 on the file of Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) Madhugiri is questioning the rejection of his application for setting aside the sale of his agricultural land measuring 2 acres 24 guntas in an auction held on 21.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. 2. Heard the counsel for the parties. 3. The admitted facts in this Writ Petition are as hereunder: The 1st respondent obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs.42,000/- in O.S.NO.176/1998 which was decreed on 16.8.1999. To execute the decree the 1st respondent “ decree holder filed an execution Petition No.11/2000 on the file...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Rep. by Its Authorised Representative Ms. M. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution Of India, With A Prayer To Directing The Respondent To Empanel The Petitioner As A Contractor Pursuant To Tender Notice For Empanelment Of Contractors Dtd.14.03.2012 (Annex-A) Published Through The Respondent's Website For Empanelment As A Contractor For The Project Of "Design and Construction Of Aircraft (Mmrca) Manufacturing Facility At Aircraft Division, Hal Bangalore" And Etc.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus and direct the respondent to empanel the petitioner as a contractor pursuant to the tender notice dated 14.03.2012 published by the respondent for empanelment as Contractor for the Design and Construction of Aircraft Manufacturing Facility ('MMRCA' for short) at Aircraft Division, Bangalore. The petitioner is also seeking that the letter dated 21.09.2012 (Annexure-Q) be quashed. On empanelment, the issue of tender documents are also sought. 2. The facts in b...
M/S. Microtex India Ltd., Represented by Its Director Gunna Ashok Redd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the 1st respondent to call for an independent report from any other approved surveyor in terms of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.10.2011 vide Annexure-H to assess the loss caused by the fire accident and furnish the copy of the report to the petitioner within a reasonable period of time of 30 days in terms of S.64 UM(3) of the Insurance Act, 1938, etc.) 1. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted to provide for establishment of "an Authority" to protect the interests of holders of insurance policies, to regulate, promote and ensure orderly growth of the insurance industry and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and further to amend the Insurance Act, 1938, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. S.3 of the Act empo...
Mrs. Elize Mascarehnas Vs. the Principal District and Sessions Judge
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records and quash the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Mysore dated 27.2.2013 vide Annexure-G.) 1. Petitioner was appointed as a typist in the SDA cadre, on 21.06.1985, in the District and Sessions Court, Kodagu District, Madikeri. Thereafter, on her own request, the petitioner was transferred to Mysore Unit on 29.09.1994. She has reported to duty at Mysore Unit on 17.10.1994. She was promoted in the Mysore Unit, to the cadre of FDA, on 15.11.2010. She having submitted representation for fixation of her seniority, at the appropriate serial number and cadre, in the seniority list and promote to the cadre to which she was entitled to and the requested having been rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, on 27.02.2013, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed to quash the said rejection and to direct the respondent to treat her as senio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›