Karnataka Court June 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.
Ramachandra S. Bhagavat Vs. The State Of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Endorsement Issued By Respondent No.3 Vide Annexure-H Dated 17.06.2013 As Null And Void And To Issue Direction To The Respondent No.3 To Comply The Order Passed In W.P.No .66974/2012, Dated 19.2.2013, Vide Annexure-G, Etc.) 1. Petitioner is a member of respondent No.4- Co-operative Bank. He was elected as a director of the bank. He had lodged a complaint on 28.11.2008 before respondent no.2 alleging acts of misappropriation and thereby causing deficiency in the funds and assets of respondent no.4. Based on the said complaint respondent no.2 issued a direction on 20.12.2008 to respondent no.3 to initiate an enquiry into the affairs of the respondent no.4. An Enquiry Officer having been appointed, conducted enquiry under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinaf ter ref erred to as 'the Act' f or short) and submitted report which revealed the cau...
Raju Vs. Dilawar D. Peerkhan and Another
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
(Prayer: This MFA Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of The M.V.Act, Against The Judgement And Award Dated 19-11-2009, Passed In Mvc.No.1086/2007, On The File Of The Member, Addl. Mact, Saundatti, Partly Allowing The Claim Petition For Compensation And Seeking Enhancement Of Compensation.) 1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by M.A.C.T., the claimant has filed this appeal for awarding of just compensation by way of enhancement. 2. Heard the learned advocates on both sides and perused the record. 3. 2nd respondent - Insurance Company which was fastened with the liability by the M.A.C.T. to pay the determined compensation has satisfied the award. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 has attained finality. In the circumstances, only point for consideration is: "Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour of the petitioner?" 4. Accident in question occurred on 24.11.2006 and the petitioner suffered the following injuries: "1. Fractur...
Ramesh Vs. The State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department and Ot ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Respondents 1 And 2 To Consider The Representations Df. 11.12,2006, 4.5.2010 and 5.12.2012 Submitted By The Petitioner Vide Annexures-J, L and N Respectively.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations dated 11.12.2006, 4.5.2010 and 5.12.2012 vide Annexures-T, V and xli' respectively. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Engineer on daily wage basis on 26.12.1983. His services were regularized by the second respondent by order dated 1 1.8.1997 with effect from 26.12.1993. The first respondent prepared separate seniority list of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers in the year 1...
Lingappa Shivajogappa Hutagonnavar Vs. Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corpora ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Passed By The 1st Respondent Bearing No.Hdmc/113,114,199/Jae/2000 Dated 10.12.2011 At Annexure-J, And Etc.) 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10.12.2011 passed by the 1st respondent in case No.HDMC/113,114,119/JAE/2000 vide Annexure-J. 2. By the impugned order at Annexure-J, the 1st respondent has appointed Sri.D.V.Shet, retd. District Judge, Dharwad, as Enquiry Officer and Sri.S.S.Nayak, as Presenting Officer. 3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Briefly stated the facts are: The petitioner joined service as Work Inspector. Subsequently, he was promoted as Junior Engineer. The first respondent served articles of charges dated 27.10.2005 and 8.11.2005 on the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was involved in misappropriation cases...
Dr. C. Basavaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records and quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2014, Bangalore passed by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-A and grant all consequential benefits.) 1. The petitioner was appointed on 12.07.2007 as Professor of Law by the University of Mysore. He was granted annual increments. In exercise of the power under S.17 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act'), he was appointed on 24.06.2013 vide order as at Annexure-E, as Registrar, University of Mysore. W.P.No.8063/2014 filed to declare that he is deemed to have been confirmed with effect from 11.07.2009 in the post of Professor of Law was allowed in part and the impugned communication therein was quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the grievance seated in a representation dated 25.01.2014. By an order dated 29.03.2014, as at Annexure-A, the order as at Annexure-E was withdrawn. The p...
Shaik Khader Vs. State By Station House
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition Is Filed Under Section 439 Of Cr.P.C. Praying To Enlarge The Petitioner On Bail In Crime No. 105/2012 Of Kuvempunagar P.S., Mysore City, For The Offences P/U/S 392, 413 R/W 34 Of Ipc.) 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.PC. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 105/2012 and charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 413 R/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused No.4 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that so far as the alleged offence under Section 392 of IPC is concerned, the present petitioner is totally unconnected. He further submitted that even according to the prosecution material,...
M/s. Supreme Overseas Export India (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Travanco ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the impugned Order dated 21.08.2013, passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (CCH-29) on I.A. No. I filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S. No.26084/2012 and to grant an Order of Temporary injunction restraining the First Defendant from releasing any amounts under the Letter of Credits.) 1. The order dated 21st August 2013 on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S. No.26084/2012 is assailed in this Miscellaneous First Appeal. By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein for injunction restraining the 1st defendant/1st respondent herein from making any payments under the Letters of Credit bearing Nos.7030012I0000003, 7030012IM0000004, 7030012- IM0000040 and 7030012IM0000041 issued on 2.1.2012, 2.1.2012, 22.3.2012 and 27.3.2012 in favour of th...
B. Muddukrishna Vs. Regional Transport Authority and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Article 226 and 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash Order Dated 17.10.2011 Vide Ann-D Of The Rta And Order In Dismissing The Appeal No.1034/2011 Dated 02.06.2012 At Ann-E By The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal And Direct The Respondents To Consider The Application For Renewal Of The Permit Of The Petitioner Bearing No.63/2000 Valid Up To 29.10.2005 Subject To The Result Of The Decision Of The Apex Court Regarding Bellary Scheme.) 1. The rejection of petitioner's application for renewal of permit No.63/2000-01 by order dated 17.10.2011 pronounced on 22.11.2011 of the Regional Transport Authority, Davanagere, led to the filing of appeal No.1304/2011 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The contentious issue before the appellate tribunal was, "Whether the petitioner did operate services on 01.04.2002 so as to be termed a saved operator under the Bellary Modified Scheme dated 24.07.2003"? The Tribunal after havi...
Director of Income-tax (International Taxation), Bangalore Vs. Sun Mic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
1. The following substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this appeal: "Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that as technology, experience or skill has not been made available to the assessee as per Article 12(4) of DTAA between India and Singapore, the payments made by the assessee were not liable to be taxed under the head "fees for technical services?" 2. The material on record discloses that the assessee entered into an agreement for availing logistic service for Sun Microsystems Singapore Private Limited ('Sun Singapore' for brevity). In terms of the agreement, Sun Singapore is required to provide distribution, management and logistic services to Sun Microsystems India Private Limited ('Sun India' for brevity) and such services included providing spare management services, provision of buffer stock, defective repair services, managing local repair centers, business planning to address service levels etc. Sun Singapore is not having any place of business...
H.S. Hemanth Vs. Senior Intelligence Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition Is Filed Under Section 438 Of Cr.P.C. Praying To Enlarge The Petitioner On Bail In The Event Of His Arrest In Dri.F.No.S/Iv/15/2014 Of Respondent Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore, Which Is Registered For The Offence P/U/S 135(A) And 135(B) Of The Customs Act.) 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.3 under Section 438 of the CR.P.C seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 135(A) and 135(B) of the Customs Act, registered in DRI.No.S/IV/15/2014. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.3 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 during the course of his arguments submitted that the present petitioner has been employed in the office of the accused No....
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »