Karnataka Court February 2015 Judgments
Nanjappa Vs. Kempaiah, Since deceased by LRs and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
(Prayer: This R.S.A. is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated: 26.03.2005 passed in R.A.No.20/2001 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mandya, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated: 16.01.2001 passed in O.S.No.80/1996 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Nagamangala.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mandya, in R.A. No.20/2001 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nagamangala, in O.S. No.80/1996. 2. Brief facts leading to the case of the parties before the trial court are that the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit schedule property on 14.3.1996. The defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs.23,790/- by receiving advance amount of Rs.10,000/- and a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt K G Geetha Rudresh Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
-:1. :- R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.57265/2014 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: SMT.K.G.GEETHA RUDRESH, W/O RUDRESH, AGED ABOUT40YEARS, MAYOR OF THE TUMKUR CORPORATION, R/A. TPK10H CROSS, SAPTHAGERI EXTENSION, TUMKUR-572102. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: JAYAKUMAR.S.PATIL, Sr. ADV. FOR SRI.A.MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.) AND:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASASOUDHA, BANGALORE. REP. BY ITS URBAN SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. 2.REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE. 3.TUMKUR CITY CORPORATION, TUMKUR, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4.T.R.NAGARAJU, S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT40YEARS, WARD NO.7, KRISHNANAGAR, TUMKUR. 5.INDRAKUMAR, S/O T.K.THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT45YEARS, -:2. :- WARD NO.1, LINGAPURA, TUMKUR. 6.VENKATAPPA.E., S/O VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT49YEARS, WARD NO.2, ANTARASANNAHALLI, TUMKUR. 7.B.S.NAGESH, (BAVIKATTANAGANNA), S/O SHAMBHASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT52YEARS, WARD...
Tag this Judgment!Somashekar Chidanand Badiger and Another Vs. The Chief Executive Engin ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 Of Constitution Of India Praying This Hon'ble Court To: Issue A Writ Of Certiorari Or Any Other Writ Or Order Or Direction Modifying The Award Dted:07/05/2010 Passed By The Permanent Lok Adalat, Belgaum In O.P. No.29/2009 By Enhancing Compensation As Prayed I.E. Rs. 10,00,000/- With Interest At The Rate 18% P.A. The Certified Copy Of The Award Is Herewith Produced And Marked At Annexure-A.) 1. The parents, who lost their 13 year old son due 10 electrocution are in appeal, aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the permanent Lok Adalat (tor short 'Adalat'), Belgaum. 2. Appellants had filed O.P.No.29/2009, under Section 22(C)(I) of Legal Service Authorities Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of their son Master Vinayak, due to electrocution. 3. The Adalat held that the petitioners son died on 16.09.2008, due to electrocution and awarded compensation, under the head,...
Tag this Judgment!Chennamma Vs. The National Education Society Of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Call For Records Pertaining To The Impugned Order; Quash The Impugned Order Dated 15.5.2014 Vide Annexure-A, Passed By The R-L And Grant All Cosnequential Benefits.) 1. The petitioner is working as an attender in the second respondent-college. She has been placed under suspension on 15.5.2014 on the ground of certain misconduct as stated in the order of suspension. Aggrieved by the order of suspension the above writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner's counsel Sri Prithveesh M.K., contended that the order of suspension has been passed for extraneous reasons namely, earlier the order of termination was passed while she was in service and thereafter by virtue of Court order, she was reinstated. Further, contended that the order of suspension is without application of mind. 3. The learned counsel Sri K.C. Shantakumar representing respondents submitted that he has not filed statement of o...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Siddaraju Vs. Siddegowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
(Prayer: This R.S.A. is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated: 24.7.2006 passed in R.A.No.131/2006 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Mandya, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated: 06.12.2005 passed in O.S.No.39/1997 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mandya.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the respondents-defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandya in R.A. No.131/2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mandya in O.S. No.39/1997. 2. Brief facts of the case of the appellant plaintiff before the trial court was that originally, two acres of land in Sy. No.14 of Dodda Banasavadi was granted to Kenchegowda by Assistant Commissioner, Madya Sub-division, by order dated 8.1.1964. Under the said grant, Kenchegowda paid the upset price and saguvali c...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Veer Singh and Another Vs. TBH Breweries India Private Limite ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
(Prayer: MFA Filed U/O 43, Rule 1(R) Of Cpc, Against The Order Dated:15.10.2014 Passed On Ia 3 In O.S.No.5926/2014 On The File Of The 18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, Allowing Ia 3 Filed U/O 39, Rule 1 and 2, R/W Sec 151 Of Cpc. MFA Filed U/O 43, Rule 1(R) Of Cpc, Against The Order Dated:15.10.2014 Passed On Ia No.1 In O.S.No.5926/2014 On The File Of The 18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, Allowing Ia No.1 File U/O 39, Rule 1 And 2, R/W Sec 151 Of Cpc. 1. Defendants of a suit in O.S.5926/14 which is pending on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, have filed these appeals since they are aggrieved by the order of injunction granting temporary injunction against them on applications, I.As.1 to 3 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. 2. Respondents herein are plaintiffs in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of p...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Chennamma Vs. The National Education Society
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF FEBRUARY2015BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.22118/2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O. CHENNAIAH AGED ABOUT40YEARS, WORKING AS ATTENDER, NATIONAL COLLEGE VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., FOR SRI M.S.BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND:1. THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SOCIETY OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004.2. THE NATIONAL COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004. (BY SRI K.C.SHANTAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENTS2THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED155.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE R-1 AND GRANT ALL COSNEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORD...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Somashekar Chidanand Badiger, Vs. The Chief Executive Engineer,
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
:1. : R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE20T H DAY OF FEBRUARY2015BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.67159 OF2010[GM-RES]. BETWEEN:1. 2. SRI. SOMASHEKAR CHIDANAND BADIGER, AGE:40. YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, SMT. BHARATI W/O SOMASHEKAR BADIGER, AGE:36. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH PETITIONERS ARE R/O M. K. HUBLI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELGAUM. (BY SRI. VITTHAL S TELI, ADV.) ... PETITIONERS AND:1. 2.3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL/HESCOM, BAILHONGAL, BAILHONGAL, BELGAUM. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL/HESCOM, BAILHONGAL, BELGAUM. THE SECION OFFICER, HESCOM, CHENNAMMA KITTUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELGAUM. (BY SMT. SHARMILA M PATIL, ADV.) ... RESPONDENTS :2. : THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO: ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION MODIFYING THE AWARD DTED:07/05/2010 PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELGAUM IN O.P. NO...
Tag this Judgment!Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. H R Thimappa Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
- 1 - R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF FEBRUARY2015PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA R.F.A.No.1475/2010 C/w. RFA.Crob.No.9/2012 RFA No.1475/2010: Between :1. Goetze (India) Ltd., Now called as Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Limited, Yelahanka, Bangalore, Rep.by its Deputy General Manager Mr.S.Gangadharaiah.2. The Executive Director Goetze (India) Ltd., Now called as Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Limited, Paras Twin Towers, 10th Floor, Tower B, Sector 54, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon. ( By Sri Umesh N., Sri Subramanya for Sri B.C.Prabhakar, Advocates ) .. Appellants And : H.R.Thimappa Gowda S/o H.Ramiaha Gowda Aged 61 yrs, R/of 2125, MIG III - 2 - .. Respondent Phase, 12th H Main Road, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore. ( By Sri C.M.Poonacha, for Lex Plexus ) This Appeal is filed under Section 96 and Order XLI R- 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 24.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.7383/1999 on the file of the XXIV...
Tag this Judgment!Puttalinganagouda @ Veeranagouda B Patil and Others Vs. The Union of I ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-19-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc;) 1. The petitioners are seeking to challenge the constitutional validity of the 'Explanation' appended to Sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, (Act 39 of 2005), namely: "Explanation: For the purposes of this Section "partition" means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court". The petitioners are also seeking a declaration that the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »