Karnataka Court February 2014 Judgments
R. Balurao Vs. the Divisional Controller and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India Praying To Call For The Entire Records From The R2 and R3 Pertaining To Ann-B and D And Quash The Order Dt. 11.7.2011 Passed By The R3 The Certified Copy Of Which Is Produced And Marked As Ann-B To The Extent The Petitioner Is Aggrieved; ETC.) 1. Petitioner having served the first respondent Road Transport Corporation as an Artisan from 23-4-70 upto 31-3-2003, the date of retirement, was entitled to gratuity on superannuation having served the corporation for 33 years. The basic pay of the petitioner on retirement was Rs.8626/- while the D.A. was Rs.4743/-. Under the provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short) determination of gratuity of the petitioner is done on the basis of the formula: [Basic pay + D.A.] x 15 x No. of years 26 service which comes to Rs.2,54,506/-, while the determination under the K.S.R.T.C Regulations ('the Regulations' for short) the same is worked out by the f...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is Filed Praying to Call for the Records Relating to Sanction of Plan in file no.Jdtp/Lp/29/06-07 Dt.3-10-11 Reflected in the Note Sheet Vide Ann-P3, Passed By The Commissioner, Bbmp, R2 and Issue Of Paln By the Addl. Director Of Town Planning Dt.3-11-11, Vide Ann-N and Pass Orders. This Petition Having Been Heard and Reserved For Orders, Coming On For Pronouncement Today, The Court Made the following:) 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, represented by its Estate Officer of Defence Research Development Organization (D.R.D.O) having its office at Bangalore is the petitioner herein preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP', for short) Respondent No.2 dated 3.10.2011 and plan sanctioned by the Respondent No.3 Town Planning Authority dated 3.11.2011 and further sought direction to Respondent No.2 BBMP to refer the application of the Respondent No.4 to Government for necessary action and sought...
Tag this Judgment!Shivakumara and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
(Prayer: This Crl.P Is Filed U/S.482 Cr.P.C Praying To Quash The Fir In Cr. No.276/2013 And Complaint For The Offences Punishable Under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 149 Of Ipc On The File Of The Respondent Police Now Pending On The File Of The Prl. C.J. (Jr. Dn.) And J.M.F.C., Hosadurga, With Respect To The Petrs. Wherein They Have Been Shown As Accused Nos.3 To 7 And To Stall The Abuse Of Process Of Court.) 1. Accused Nos.3 to 7 in Crime No. 276/2013 registered by Hosadurga Police Station within the jurisdiction of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC., Hosadurga, Chitradurga District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 149 of IPC have come up in this petition seeking quashing of proceedings initiated pursuant to the said complaint: 2. The offence alleged against them is with reference to issuance of false death certificate in respect of 2Dd respondent herein - Smt. S. Bhagyamma, who is said to be owner of 05 Acres 35 guntas of land in...
Tag this Judgment!Munivenkatamma Vs. Ganga Anjanamma and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Praying To Quash The Order Dtd. 14.03.12 One Passed By The Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, On Ia No.5 In O.S.No.412/2009 Old N0.739/2006 Found At Annexure-F And Etc.,) 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.412/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala. The respondents are the defendants. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.12.2002. 3. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of CPC requesting the trial Court to permit him to take back the agreement -with liberty to produce the same before the Deputy Commissioner for adjudication ol the duty and penalty. The Court below has dismissed the application by order at Annexure-F dated 14.03.2012 and directed the office to calculate the duty and penalty payable on the said document. The office has determined ...
Tag this Judgment!Anjana and Another Vs. Sanjay @ Chandrakant Ramu Belavi and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
(Prayer: Rfa Filed Under Sec. 96 Of Cpc, Against The Judgment And Decree Dtd: 06.02.2013 Passed In F.D.P. N0.01/2010 On The File Of The Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Hukkeri, Allowing The Petition Filed U/O. 20 Rule 18 R/W Sec. 151 Of Cpc.) (Prayer: Rfa Filed Under Sec. 96 Of Cpc, Against The Judgment And Decree Dtd: 07.02.2013 Passed In F.D.P. No.2/2010 On The File Of The Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Hukkeri, Allowing The Petition Filed U/O. 20 Rule 18 R/W. Sec. 151 Of Cpc.) (Prayer: Rfa Filed Under Sec. 96 Of Cpc 1908, Against The Judgment And Decree Dtd: 06.02.2013 Passed In F.D.P. No. 1/2010 On The File Of The Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Hukkeri, Allowing The Petition Filed U/O. 20 Rule 18 R/W. Sec. 151 Of Cpc.) 1. There is a delay in preferring these appeals. As against the very same judgment and decree passed, R.F.A.No.4229/2013 is filed and is admitted. All the parties are before this Court. They have duly executed the compromise petition. They admit the execution of compromise. 2. All these applications ...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Venkatachalaiah Vs. Gullappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
(Prayer: This RSA is filed under Section 100 C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.01.2007 passed in R.A. No. 153/1998 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal filed against Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.1998 passed in O.S. No.45/1992 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hoskote.) 1. This second appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. 45/1992 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.j and JMFC, Hosakote, dismissing the suit filed by Mm for declaration of Ms title to the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction. 2. The subject matter of the suit is a land measuring 2 32 guntas in Survey No.6 of Beerahalli Village in Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk. 3. The appellant-plaintiff filed the said suit seeking declaration of his title inter alia contending that the suit schedule property was a Service Inam Land attached to the Village Office of Shanbhog; that he wa...
Tag this Judgment!The Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 13.08.2013 in dispute No.JPD/TJDF/571/2013-14 produced at Annexure-A.) 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the notice dated 29.08.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent - the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Karnataka State Urban Co-operative Banks Federation. 3. By the impugned notice, petitioner - Bank is communicated with the proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 against the Bank and of the interim stay granted for recovery of the land pursuant to the notice issued by the Bank on 20.05.2013. Petitioner is also informed that the matter would be taken up on 27.09.2013. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute regarding the loan availed by the 4th respondent from ...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Karnataka, Re ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
(Prayer: These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to quash the order dated i 1.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 13841/2006.) 1. The High Court of Karnataka has framed Rules to regulate the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. They are known as "'Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977" (for short, 'the Rules'). They have come into force with effect from 01.02.1977. Among other things, the said Rules provide for the procedure to be followed once the matter is posted before the bench lor preliminary hearing. Rule 13 which is relevant for ~he purpose provides in sub-clause (a) that the Court if satisfied shall issue rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show cause why the order sought should not be made. The first proviso to Rule 13(a) provides for issue of notice to show cause why rule nisi shall not be issued. The second proviso to Rule 13(a) provides that the Court may direct...
Tag this Judgment!S.L. Papa Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Praying To Direct The R2 To Consider Representations Dt. 13.3.03, and 11.6.12, Vide Ann-E and Ann-G.) 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents to consider the representations submitted by him for his absorption as an employee of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'the BBMP'). 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in Gudibande Town Panchayath on daily wage basis with effect from 25.04.1991. After completion of requisite number of years of service and pursuant to a decision taken to regularize the services of such employees, the State Government has passed an order on 06.06.2012 to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 23.04.2001. This order is produced at Annexure-B. 3. The State Government has consiituted BBMP by merging seven City Municipal Council,, one Town Municipality and several villages in...
Tag this Judgment!The State, Through Lokayukta Police Vs. Harmuzdiar
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
(Prayer: This Crl.R.P. Is Filed Under Section 897 R/W 401 Of Cr.P.C. Praying To Set Aside The Order Dated : 26.11.2012 Passed Under Section 451 Of Cr.P.C. Releasing The Bank Deposits, Indira Vikas Patra, Share Certificates And Also The Sale Deeds Of Immoveable Properties By The Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga Thereby Allowed The Application Filed By The Acccused In Speciail Case No.71 Of 2005.) 1. This revision petition iq filed seeking to set aside the ordei dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga/Spl Judge in Spl.case No.71/2005, under which the trial Court has returned the documents i.e., Bank deposit receipts, Indira Vikas Patros and share certificates belongs to the respondent who is facing the case for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge against the respondent is ih at he was having assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It is seen from the order that the Spl. Judge has directed the respondent-accused to execute...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »