Karnataka Court February 2014 Judgments
Veena and Others Vs. the Special Officer and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3860/2006 (GM-CPC) dated 08/03/2010.) 1. The appellants, who were petitioners in writ petition, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.3860/2006 (GM-CPC) dated 8th March 2010, have presented this writ appeal. 2. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners/appellants herein, they had sought for quashing the order at Annexure A therein dated 1st February 2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore in Appeal No. 1390/2005 and also the order dated 24th August 2005 passed by the first respondent - Officer authorized (but wrongly mentioned as Special Officer, Land Tribunal, Udupi in the cause title), vide Annexure B to the writ petition. 3. The said writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the im...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Mary John Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent Authorities to frame an award as contemplated under Section 29(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 by determining the market value as on the date of this petition in respect of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.74/302 of Bandi Kodigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Yelhanka Taluk, Bangalore District, held by the petitioner and acquired as per final notification dated 7.5 2007 vide Annexure-A. This petition, having been heard and reserved on 21.01.2014 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day, the Court delivered the following) 1. The petitioner claims that she was the owner of 4 acres of land bearing Sy.no.74/302 of Band; Kodigenahalli. The same having been the subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Karoataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act', for brevity, the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!United Breweries (Holdings) Limited and Others Vs. State Bank of India ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
(These writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, with a prayer to declare that r1 to r16 are precluded from taking recourse to remedies under the drt act till the respondent banks have first exhausted their remedies under the sarfaesi act as per ann-m and etc. these writ petitions having been reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day. the court pronounced the following :) 1. In all these petitions, the petitioners are seeking a declaration that respondent No.l to 16 are precluded from taking recourse to remedies under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ;RDDB Act' for short) till the respondent-Banks have first exhausted their remedies under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short). They are also seeking that the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT'...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India Represented by Secretary and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Praying To Declare That Portion Of Section 10-A Of The Divorce Act, 1869, Produced As Annexure-B That Prescribes A Period Of Two Years As The Separation Period For Filing A Petition For Divorce By Mutual Consent As Being Discriminatory And Violative Of Articles 14 Amd 21 Of The Constitution Of India And To Read Down The Minimum Mandatory Period Of Separation Contemplated Under Section 10a Of The Divorce Act, 1869 From A Period Of 'Two Years' To A Period Of 'One Year'.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed in public interest to seek a declaration that Section 10-A of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') prescribing a period of 'two years' as the separation period before filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. An alternative prayer is also sought by requesting the Court to read down the expression 'two years' in Section 10...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarbhatt S/0 Mart and Abhatt Pujar, and State of Karnataka and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
This R.F.A is filed under section 96 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2006 passed in o.s. no. 112/2001 on the file of the i addl. senior civil judge at bagalkot, dismissing the suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction and etc. this appeal coming for final hearing on this day, court delivered the following:- 1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff of O.S. No. 112/2001 under Section 96 challenging the judgment and decree passed on 24.08.2006 by the learned First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eadami. Suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction has been dismissed by considered judgment dated 24.08.2006. Respondents herein are the defendant nos.l to 7 in the trial Court. Parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court. 2. Property over which the main relief of declaration of title has been sought by the plaintiff is an agricultural land measuring 3.08 acres ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandrakala and Others Vs. the Secretary, Department of Revenue
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
(These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the 2nd respondent to direct 3rd respondent not to act upon and to quash the notice dated 13.1.2014 vide Annexures-E and El respectively. These petitions having been reserved, this day, the Court pronounced the following:) 1. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that, the petitioners are tite Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Makali Grama Panchayat (for short 'the Panchayat'). Respondents 5 to 11, the members of the Panchayat, having presented a Motion of No-Confidence on 02.01.2014, the 3rd respondent has given notice dated 13.01.2014 in Form-II under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules'), fixing the meeting of the Panchayat on 29.01.2014 at 12.00 noon at the Panchayat Office. Petitioners having received the notice of the said meeting, filed these writ petitions on 24....
Tag this Judgment!Shankarbhatt S/0 Mart and Abhatt Pujar, and State of Karnataka and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
This R.F.A is filed under section 96 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2006 passed in o.s. no. 112/2001 on the file of the i addl. senior civil judge at bagalkot, dismissing the suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction and etc. this appeal coming for final hearing on this day, court delivered the following:- 1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff of O.S. No. 112/2001 under Section 96 challenging the judgment and decree passed on 24.08.2006 by the learned First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eadami. Suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction has been dismissed by considered judgment dated 24.08.2006. Respondents herein are the defendant nos.l to 7 in the trial Court. Parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court. 2. Property over which the main relief of declaration of title has been sought by the plaintiff is an agricultural land measuring 3.08 acres ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›