Karnataka Court February 2014 Judgments
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!Union of India Reptd by Its Secretary and Others Vs. D.N. Sarojadevi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in O.A.No.279/2012 dated 6.2.2013, ETC.) 1. These writ petitions are directed against the older in O.A.No.279/2012 dated 6.2.2013 whereby the Centra] Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has dnected the respondent to continue in the present premises till an alternate ground floor accommodation at the new place is. made available to her. 2. The respondent was emp^yed at Airport Station, Yelahanka as Steno-I and was provided with an authorized Government accommodation within the station premises. On being promoted as Personal Secretary, she was transferred to the Station Headquartes Training Command, Indian Airforce Unit at Hebbal, Bangalore. She joined duty at the new work place on 1.3.2011. 3. As per the prevailing policy, the defence civilian employees have to vacate their quarters on posti...
Tag this Judgment!Maneyapanda Kalappa @ RIn and Others Vs. Maneyapanda Nanjappa and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
(Prayer: This Appeal Is Filed Under Section 96 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, Against The Judgment And Decree Dated 08.09.2011 Passed In O.S. No. 104/2004 On The File Of The Senior Civil Judge, Virajpet, Partly Decreeing The Suit For Partition And Separate Possession And Etc.,) 1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in OS No 104 of 2004, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Virajpet. Being not satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 8-9-2011 passed in the said suit, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the trial court. 3. The plaintiffs are the children of defendants 1 and 2. First defendant is the father and the second defendant is the mother. Defendants 3 and 4 are Canara bank and its divisional manager, from whom the defendants 1 and 2 have borrowed a loan. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession, contending that suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are ...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Manjula Vs. the Prescribed Officer and Assistant Executive Engine ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
(Prayer: This Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praving To Quash The Election Intimation Notice Dated 7.2,2014 Issued By The 1st Respondent Vide Annexure-C Only In So Far As Notifying The Calender Of Events For The Election To Be Held To The Post Of President Of 2nd Respondent - Gram Panchayat, ETC.) (Prayer: These Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Call For The Concerned Records, Quash The Notice Dated 11.2.2014 Issued By The 4„ Respondent Vide Annexure-E and Direct The Respondents To Conduct Election To The Post Of Adhyaksha Of Mudiyanooru Grama Panchayat According To The Calendar Of Events Issued On 7.2.2014.) 1. Petitioners are the elected members of Mudiyaiiooru Grama Panchayat, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District. Post of Adhyaksha of the Panchayat has fallen vacant, owing to the resignation of the earlier Adhyaksha. Said post has been reserved for 3 Woman member belonging to Scheduled...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Pushpavathi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Represented by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the notification dated 3.2.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent issued under sub Section 17[1] and [3] of Section 17 of Bangalore Development Authority Act vide Annexure-K and also notification dated 23.2.2004 issued under Section 19[1] of the Bangalore Development Authority Act vide Annexure-L in so far as they relate to site No.49 and 50 formed out of land in former survey No.5 of Geddalahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and etc;) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner had acquired title to sites bearing Nos.49 and 50, formed out of land which was converted for residential purpose, bearing Survey No.5 of Geddalahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, under a sale deed dated 31.3.1992, executed by one Swaminathan through his general ...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.P. Suryanarayana Vs. State Bank of Mysore Vyalikaval Branch and Ot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Dated 17.4.2012 Passed By The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, At Chennai, In Ra.No.245/10 Vide Annexure-A.) 1. The order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (DRAT), dated 17.04.2012 in RA No.245/2010 is assailed in this Writ Petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts are, that respondent Nos.2 to 4 had availed of credit facility from respondent No.1-Bank. The petitioner herein was a guarantor for the said loan. As the borrowers did not repay the borrowed amount, proceedings were initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore (DRT) in OA No.199/2003 by the Bank. By order dated 06.09.2010, the DRT allowed the original application filed by the Bank against respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein directing them to pay jointly, severally and personally the amounts payable to the Bank, and dismissed the original application as against the petitioner herein. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka and Another Vs. S.D. Shashidara and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 23.11.2009 in application Nos.5148/2008 connected with 5995, 5996, 5997, 5993 and 5999/2008, etc.) 1. The State of Karnataka and the Director General and Inspector General of Police have filed W.P.Nos. 1901/2010 and 6815-6831/2010 challenging the legality of the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 23.11.2009 in application Nos.5148/2008 connected with 5995, 5996, 5997, 5998 and 5999/2008. 2. All the other writ petitions have also been filed assailing the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The petitioners in all these cases are referred to as 'the petitioners' and the private respondents are referred to as 'the applicants' for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as under: The Police Sub-Inspectors Recruitment Committee issued a notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Malli and Another Vs. the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To, Set Aside The Impugned Order Passed By The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Chennai Dated 31.10.2012 Vide Annexure-E.) 1. The order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRAT') in AIR(SA) 55/2011 dated 31/10/2012 (Annexure-E) is assailed in these writ petitions. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners had borrowed a housing loan from the first respondent-Bank to an extent of Rs.6,36,000/- in the year 2003. As the petitioners did not repay the said amount, the 3ank initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act"). Demand notice under sub-section (2.) of Section 13 of that Act was issued followed by possession notice under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Suguna Vs. Muni Krishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition Is Filed Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Praying To Set Aside The Impunged Order Dated 24.10.11 Passed In C.C.No.4406/08 On The File Of The Xiii Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore And Also The Judgment Dated 4.10.12 Passed By The P.O., Ftc-Ix, Bangalore City In Crl.A. No.826/11.) 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the judgment dated 24.10.2011 in C.C.No.4406/2008 on the file of the XIII, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.6.4 5,000/- and the judgment dated 04.10.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.826/2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - IX, Bangalore City, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate came to be confirmed, while dismissing the appeal. 2. The petitioner herein was the accused before the Magistrate and the respondent was the complainant. On the r...
Tag this Judgment!Nandisha and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
(Prayer: This Appeal Is Filed Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., Praying To Set Aside The Judgment Dated 13.02.2009, Passed By Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge At Mandya In Spl.C.N0.45/2008, Convicting Appellant No.1 Accused No.1 For An Offence Punishable Under Section 324 Ipc And Also For An Offence Punishable Under Section 3(L)(X) Of The Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities;, Act and Convicting Appellants 2 and 3-Accused 2 and 3 For An Offence Punishable Under Section 341 Ipc and Etc.) 1. Appellants 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred as 'accused 1 to 3') were tried for offences punisnable under sections 341, 324 and 506 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'). The learned Special Judge convicted accused No.1 for an offence punisnable under section 324 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 3(l)(x) of the Act. The le...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »