Karnataka Court August 2015 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.
P Rajeshwari Vs. Srinivasa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE10H DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL C.R.P.No.483/2013 BETWEEN P.RAJESHWARI W/O K. PONNAIAH AGED ABOUT62YEARS NO18 RANGAPPA STREET, CHIKKA MAVALLI BANGALORE560004 ... PETITIONER (By Sri.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR LEX NEXUS, ADVS.) AND1 SRINIVASA S/O LATE ANNALAPPA AGED ABOUT37YEARS2 THIMMAIAH S/O LATE ANNALAPPA AGED ABOUT34YEARS3 VENKATESH S/O LATE ANNALAPPA AGED ABOUT28YEARS4 SOMU S/O LATE ANNALAPPA AGED ABOUT26YEARS5 DODDANNA S/O LATE ANNALAPPA AGED ABOUT24YEAS2ALL ARE R/AT KAMMANSADRA PALYA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT6 KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE THIMME REDDY AGED ABOUT66YEARS RAMANAGARA VILLAGE MUTTANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK7 N.GURAPPA REDDY S/O NANJUNDA REDDY AGED ABOUT51YEARS8 R.S.GEETHA D/O N GURAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT31YEARS9 R.G. GIRIJA D/O N GURAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT28YEARS RESPS. 6 TO9R/AT RAMANAGARA VILLAGE, MUTTANAHALLI POST, ATTIBEL...
Nagayya S/O Chandrashekhar Kadadevar, Vs. The State of Karnataka,
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-10-2015
- 1 - R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE10H DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION No.102268/2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: Nagayya, S/o. Chandrashekhar Kadadevar Age:32. years, Occ: Police Sub-Inspector R/o. Rannebennur Rural Police Station Rannebennur. Petitioner (By Sriyuths K. L. Patil & S. S. Beturmath, Advocates) AND:1. The State of Karnataka Through Secretary, Home Department Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore.2. The Karnataka Human Rights Commission Rep. by Secretary M. S. Building, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Road Bangalore 560 001 3. M. Sandeep Muniswamy Age: Major, Occ: Not Known R/o. No.14, Daneshwar Nagar - 2 - Gopanakoppa Near St. Johns Polytechnic Hubli. (By Sri M. Kumar, AGA for R1; Sri H. R. Kambiyavar, Advocate for R2; Sri Jhankumar Kalangi, Advocate for R3) --- ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution Of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 27.01.2014 passed in...
V. Ambarish Rao Vs. The Deputy General Manager and Another
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The present petition is filed in the following background.- The petitioner is said to have joined the services of respondent-Bank in the year 1969 as a Clerk. He was promoted from time to time and his services were appreciated throughout the decades. He had served the respondent-Bank at several places within and outside the State of Karnataka. He was, however, placed under suspension by an order dated 8-4-2006 on certain allegation, which according the petitioner are false. There was no warrant to keep the petitioner under suspension. However, a charge-sheet was said to have been issued on 1-6-1967 alleging that he had failed to follow various guidelines while providing certain discounts and that in giving discounts to cheques he had exceeded his powers; that while granting loans he has exceeded his powers and had permitted persons to open accounts without proper identification and that they...
S.L. Basavaraj (HUF) Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
(Prayer: These ITAs. are U/S.260-A of the I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 30-01-2009 passed in ITA NO. 278 to 280/BNG/2008, for the Assessment years 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2003-04 dated 23.11.2006, 24.3.2006, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (I). Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (II). Allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in ITA No. 278 to 280/BNG/2009, dated 30-01-2009.) 1. These three appeals are filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2003-2004. The Appellate Commissioner had decided the appeals in favour of the assessee, which order was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. By a common order dated 30.1.2009, Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the Revenue. Aggrieved by the said order, these appeals have been filed, which have been admitted on the following questions of law. (i) Whether the assessing officer has assumed valid jurisdiction in l...
J.I. Havaldar Vs. State Bank of India, represented Chief General Manag ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash order dtd: 24.08.2007 (Under Annexure-G to the WP) passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 10.06.2008 passed by the appellate authority and etc.,) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner remains absent. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is said to have joined the services of the State Bank of India in the year 1977 as a Clerk-cum-Cashier and he was said to have been promoted as an Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale “ 1 in the year 1986 and was further promoted as an Officer in Middle Management Grade Scale “ II in the year 2001. It is claimed that he had blemishless record of service for over 30 years. He was said to have been posted and working as the Deputy Manager (Cash) cum System Administrator at Hirekerur branch of the bank from October 2005. He was a joint key holder. On noticing that there was shortage of ...
The Divisional Controller NEKRTC, Bidar Division, Bidar Vs. Venkat
Court: Karnataka Kalaburagi
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed U/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 praying to set aside the judgment dated 14.08.2012 passed by the learned single judge in W.P.No.83808/2011 to the extent it directs 25% backwages to the respondent, further be pleased to allow the writ petition as prayed for therein.) H.G. Ramesh, J. (Oral): (i) Whether the Labour Court or any adjudicating authority, before whom an order of dismissal or discharge of a workman is challenged, has jurisdiction to adjudicate as to whether the order contravened Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( ˜the Act')? (ii) Whether the concerned Authority referred to in Section 33A of the Act only has the jurisdiction to adjudicate as to whether an order of dismissal or discharge of a workman contravened Section 33 of the Act? These are the two questions that arise for determination in this intra court appeal presented by North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NEKRTC). We have answered the f...
G. Ramaswamy Vs. Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority, Hubli E ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
1. The petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 23-7-2013 whereby the respondent 1 has imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual increment with cumulative effect, and have directed to treat the suspended period as leave to the credit of the petitioner, and if leave is not available, then to treat the suspension period as leave without allowance. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23-5-2014 passed by the respondent 2, the Managing Director and Appellate Authority, Karnataka Electricity Supply Company Limited, whereby the Appellate Authority has confirmed the penalty order dated 23-7-2013. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent-organisation as Assistant Engineer in 1991. On 31-7-2012, while the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in ALDC Branch, Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short, the HESCOM ?), at Hubli, suddenly, he had a toothache. Therefore, he had applied for casual leave. He ...
P. Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
1. This Habeas Corpus petition is filed questioning the validity of the order dated 8-5-2015 passed by the 1st respondent; the order of approval dated 16-5-2015 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order of confirmation dated 18-6-2015. The order at Annexure “ A, dated 8-5-2015 is passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 ( ˜the Actfor short) for detaining Mr. Lokesha alias Mulama s/o late Venkatesha. The Commissioner of Police being satisfied that the said Lokesha is a goonda as defined under clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the order of detention. Along with the detention order, grounds of d...
State of Karnataka Vs. Farzana and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. 1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 21-11-2009 passed by the Fast Track Court No. VI, Bengaluru (CCC-6) in S.C. No. 75 of 2007 is called in question by the State in this appeal. 2. The accused-respondents are tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 342, 366-A and 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that prosecutrix i.e., P.W. 1, living at Kadapa in Andhra Pradesh State, came about 15 days prior to 22-8-2006 to Bengaluru in order to meet her sister Smt. Kamalbee; Kamalbee's husband (C.W. 6) was running a watch shop in the City Market, Bengaluru. Prosecutrix got down from the bus at city bus stand and went to her brother-in-law's watch shop; however, the watch shop was closed. She enquired with the neighbouring tea shop; tea shop owner told the prosecutrix to wait till the opening of the watch shop, she cou...
B.R. Muralidhar Raju Vs. Rajashekara Raju and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
1. This revision petition is filed under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short the Act') challenging the order dated 21-62-013 passed in execution case No.1169 of 2013 thereby dismissing the application filed by the objector under Order 21, Rules 29 and 97 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed H.R.C.No.267 of 2011 seeking eviction of the 3rd respondent - Sri Pradeep invoking the provisions of Section 27(2)(a) and 27(2)(r) of the Act. Indeed, in this petition, revision petitioner herein filed an application seeking to be impleaded as party respondent contending inter alia that there was no such tenant by name Pradeep in the petition schedule premises and that it was he who was in occupation of the premises. This application was rejected. H.R.R.P.No.26 of 2013 was filed against the said order before this Court. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 27-3-2015. Eventually, the execution petition was allowed by passing an order dated 8-...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »