Karnataka Court June 2015 Judgments
Vidya Raikar and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka Department of Trans ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the following articles of charges viz., article of charges dated 13.10.2012 as contained under Annexure-A, dated 18.10.2012 as contained under Annexure-B, dated 20.7.2012 as contained under Annexure-C, dated 24.7.2012 as contained under Annexure-D, dated 13.8.2013 as contained under Annexure-E, dated 28.10.2013 as contained under Annexure-F and dated 21.11.2013 as contained under Annexure-G, etc.,) 1. The petitioners, who are/were the employees of the second respondent Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ( ˜KSRTCfor short), have challenged the articles of charges and have also sought the declaration to the effect that the KSRTC and Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation ( ˜BMTCfor short) have no power either under the Security Standing Order, dated 04.04.1957 or under the Security Standing Order No.10/1983 to lay the traps against the petitioners and the f...
Tag this Judgment!Annapurnamma Vs. Sarojamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
(Prayer: These Regular First Appeals filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009 passed in O.S.No.4202/1988 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for the declaration and permanent injunction.) 1. These appeals are by the defendant in the suit. The same are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. It was the case of the plaintiff that house bearing no.12, M.N. Krishna Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, originally belonged to one Settru Sangappa. The plaintiff and the defendant were his daughters. It transpires that Sangappa had gifted that portion of the property demarcated in plaint Schedule Ato the plaintiff and the portion demarcated in plaint Schedule Bin favour of the defendant. The plaintiff is said to be a resident of Mysore city. It was alleged that taking advantage of her absence, the defendant had attempted to encroach on a portion of Schedule Aproperty by pu...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkavenkatarayappa and Others Vs. Muddappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
(Prayer: This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Sec.100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 22.9.2012 in R.A.No.63/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta, etc.) 1. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.63/2008 dated 22.9.2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta. 2. Muddappa is the plaintiff in the suit. The defendants are Chikka Venkatarayappa and Ramakka. The plaintiff and the first defendant are undivided brothers and the second defendant is their sister. It is the case of the plaintiff that his grand father was cultivating the suit schedule properties (for short the land') as a tenant. After his death, his father was cultivating the said land. After the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ( ˜Actfor short) in the year 1974, neither the plaintiff nor the first defendant filed form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. The first defendant being the el...
Tag this Judgment!Bapuji House Building Co-Operative, Byatarayanapura Vs. V.C. Reddappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order dated 3-10-2013 passed on an application filed under Order7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the II Additional civil judge (junior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in O.S. No. 526 of 2006 is called in question in the present petition. 3. Petitioner herein is the defendant 4 in the said suit O.S No. 526 of 2006 challenging the Respondent 4-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has passed surcharge award in terms of Section 69 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 against M. Rudrachar, the deceased defendants 2and 10 others. The persons against whom surcharge proceedings were initiated were none other than Directors of defendant 4-Bapuji House Building Co-operative Society. Few of them had filed an appeal before the KAT and the same came to be dismissed. Deceased defendant 2-Rudrachar purchased the schedule property on 4-3-1991 through a registered sale deed and handed over the schedule propert...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Annapurnamma Vs. Smt Sarojamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1268 OF2009CONNECTED WITH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1269 OF2009BETWEEN: Smt. Annapurnamma, Aged about 68 years, Daughter of Late Setru Sangappa, Now residing at No.37, MNK Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004. APPELLANT COMMON (By Shri. B.N.Anantha Narayana, Advocate) AND: Smt. Sarojamma, Aged about 71 years, Wife of Late Nagarajappa, No.188, Ramavilas Road, Mysore 570005. RESPONDENT (By Shri. C.R.Gopalaswamy, Advocate ) COMMON2These Regular First Appeals filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009 passed in O.S.No.4202/1988 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for the declaration and permanent injunction. These Regular First Appeals having been heard and reserved on 17.6.2015 and coming on for pronouncement of Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Vidya Raikar Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF JUNE2015BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION Nos.35194-35199 OF2014(S-KSRTC) BETWEEN :1. Smt.Vidya Raikar, W/o.P.Hosapoojari, Aged about 39 years, R/at No.3/6, Officers Quartets, Near BMTC Workshop, Shanthinagar, Bangalore 560 027.2.3. Sri Ramesh, S/o.Doddegowda, Aged about 52 years, Residing at No.37, B.D.A.Road, Adarsha Nagara, Nagarabhavi 1st Stage, Bangalore 560 072. Sri R.Venkatesh, S/o.Late Ramappa, Aged about 50 years, Working as Traffic Controller, East Division (Accident Section), B.T.M.T. 6th Floor, T.T.M.C. Building, Dommalur Bus Stand, Bangalore 560 071.4. 2 Sri P.L.Nataraja, S/o.Lakshmikanthaiah, Aged about 48 years, Working as Depot Manager, K.S.R.T.C. Kunigal Depot, Kunigal, Tumkur District.5. U.S.Karegowda, S/o.Late K.Sureshappa, Aged about 47 years, Working as Security and Vigilance Officer, K.S.R.T.C. Chikamagaluru.6. Basavaraj Talageri, S/o.Yellappa, Aged about 39 ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Chikkavenkatarayappa Vs. Shri Muddappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF JUNE2015BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1435/2014 (DEC/PAR). Between: Shri Chikkavenkatarayappa, S/o Taruvakar Pillappa, Since deceased by his L.Rs. 1 2 Shri Venkatesh, S/o Chikkavenkatarayappa, Aged about 56 years, R/a Ullurpet, Shidlaghatta Town, Chikkaballapura Dist. 562 105. Smt.Kempamma, W/o Karagappa, Aged about 50 years, D/o late Chikkavenkatarayappa, R/a Avalagurki Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura Tq. & Dist.562 105. 2 Smt.Deveeramma, W/o Sri P.Muniraju, D/o late Chikka Venkatarayappa, Aged about 47 years, R/a K.Muthakadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura Dist. 562 105. Shri C.Devaraj, S/o late Chikkavenkatarayappa, Aged about 45 years, R/a Ullurpet, Shidlaghatta Town, Chikkaballapura Dist. 562 105. . Appellants. 3 4 5 (By Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, Adv.) And :1. Smt.Manjula, W/o Lakshman Gowda, D/o late Chikkavenkatarayappa, Aged about 41 y...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Narayanaswamy and Another Vs. Makbulunnisa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
(Prayer: This W.P. is filed u/A.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dt.26.10.13 passed by the learned Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, at Bengaluru, in O.S.No.638/07 by impounding the duty and penalty vide Ann-E.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the matter is taken up for final hearing with their consent. 2. The order dated 26.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.638/2007 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, is called in question. A suit has been filed by the plaintiffs -petitioners herein for the relief of specific performance of the contract on the basis of agreement of sale said to have been executed by the deceased father of the defendants - respondents herein on 25.4.2006 relating to 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.12 of Ankonahalli village of Hosakote taluk. The defendants - respondents have filed a detailed written statement opposing the claim of the petitioners, on the basis of wh...
Tag this Judgment!Yashoda Vs. Secretary (Home Department) and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any writ order or direction declaring the detention of Keshava Poojary @ Choni S/o Jaya Poojary by quashing the order of detention bearing No.MAG/03/MGC/2014 dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure-A) and order No.HD 508 SST 2014 dated 06.11.2014, 08.12.2014 and 28.01.2015 (Annexure-C, C1, C2) as illegal and void ab initio and writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to release the detenu forthwith.) 1. This petition is filed praying for a direction to declare that the order of preventive detention passed against Keshava Poojary @ Choni, S/o. Jaya Poojary is bad in the eyes of law and for quashing the order of detention dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure-A), and the orders Annexure-C, dated 6.11.2014, Annexure-C1, dated 8.12.2014 and Annexure-C2, dated 28.1.2015 ...
Tag this Judgment!Annabel Builders Developers Private Limited and Another Vs. The State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
(Prayer: These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the condition to remit lease rentals imposed by the R-2 in its allotment letter dtd.23.7.2014 [Annex-A] and etc.,) 1. The core short question for decision making is, Whether Regulation 7.1(2) of the Regulations for Residential Development Plan under the Revised Master Plan 2015 empowers the respondent-BDA to allot the civic amenitysite on lease and demand lease rentals, exercising jurisdiction under The Bangalore Development (Allotment of Civic Amenity Site) Rules, 1989? ? 2. Petitioner No.1 sought to develop 26 acres 32.8 guntas of land in several survey numbers of Begur village for residential purpose invoking Chapter VII of Zoning of Land Use and Regulations providing for Revised Master Plan 2015, for short RMP', under The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, for short KTCP Act'. The development plan Annexure-B, for group housing was accorded sanction by the respond...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »