Karnataka Court October 2016 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.
M/s. Deutsche Bank AG, Bangalore Vs. The State of Karnataka, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction entrusting the investingation in Crime No.213/2009 of Halsoor Police Station, Bangalore, now being investigated by CCB, Bangalore, registered for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bangalore and declare that the legal opinion at Annexure P3 herein given by the Respondent No.2 is illegal and invalid.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court in these petitions seeking that the investigation in Crime No.213/2009 of Halasuru Police Station, Bengaluru registered for the offences alleged under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI' for short). In that regard the petitioner is contending that the legal opinion ...
Jayshree Gururaj Vs. Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited, through it ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare the term 12(c)(ii) of the contract of employment as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconscionable, unfair, contrary to public policy and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and unconstitutional and consequently, set aside the order of termination dated 24.04.2015 at Annexure-D by restoring the petitioner s status as a permanent employee holding the post of Senior Director in Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. with all consequential benefits.) 1. Petitioner was appointed as Senior Director (Advanced Services) in respondent No.1 Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited on 15.05.2012. Respondent No.1 is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a private limited company and has a Special Economic Zone unit (for short, SEZ unit) operating from its place of business at Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. 2. Petitioner joined her duties on 23.07.2...
K.G. Jagadeesha Vs. State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary to G ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 17.8.2016 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.7423/2016 vide Annexure-A to the W.P. and grant all consequential Benefits.) 1. With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the both the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and finally heard. 2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the application and has set aside the transfer order and has further issued consequential direction. 3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are employees of respondent No.1 in the Department of Public Works. On 20.06.2015 the respondent No.2 was transferred as Executive Engineer, PWD, Chitradurga, in place of one Mr.C.Thimmappa. Said Sri. C.Thimmappa challenged the transfer order before the Trib...
Bhadreshappa and Others Vs. Rudramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
(Prayer: This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.30/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere, dismissing the suit for partition.) 1. Heard on admission. For the sake of convenience, henceforth parties will be arraigned as per their status before the Trial Court. 2. This is a plaintiffs' appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal J.M.F.C., Tarikere, in O.S.No.30/2011, whereby the plaintiffs' suit for partition and possession of 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties with mesne profits came to be dismissed. 3. Case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court was, they along with the deceased husband of the defendant namely, Mallappa constituted Hindu undivided family and the suit properties are the ancestral undivided joint family properties. The mother of Late Mallappa namely Smt. Nanjamma after the d...
k.g.jagadeesha Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE06H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.48988/2016 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: K.G.JAGADEESHA S/O LATE R. GANGALAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT51YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PMGSY DIVISION CHITRADURGA & R/AT NO.16686/66 6TH CROSS, B.L.GOWDA LAYOUT CHITRADURGA-577 536. (BY SRI NAGA PRASANNA M, ADVOCATE) AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS PETITIONER2AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.2. (BY SRI H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, AGA FOR R-1; SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) G.S.KUMAR S/O K. SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT57YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD CHITRADURGA DIVISION PRESENTLY UNDER TRANSFER TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT CHITRADURGA-577 536. RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING T...
Ms Jayshree Gururaj Vs. Cisco Systems (India)private Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
WP197262015 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE06H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.19726/2015 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: Ms.Jayshree Gururaj, D/o. H.S.Gururaja Rao, Aged about 45 years, Residing at 341, Adarsh Palm Retreat, Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore 560 013. (By Sri H.S.Gururaj Rao, Senior Counsel for Sri Harikrishna S.Holla, Adv.) AND:1. Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited, PETITIONER (A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) located at Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 103, India, Through its Managing Director, Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.2. Mr.Parvesh Sethi, Senior Vice President, Cisco Systems, USA, Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnatak...
Ansar and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka, Bengaluru and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed U/s.439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.58/2016 of Periyapatna P.S., Mysuru District for the offence P/U/s 395 and 397 of IPC.) 1. Since all these petitions are in respect of the same crime number and since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the cases, they are taken together to dispose of them by this common order. 2. Crl.P.No.5911/2016 is filed by accused No.4; Crl.P.No.5958/2016 is filed by accused No.1; Crl.P.No.5987/2016 is filed by accused No.9 and Crl.P.No.6326/20916 is filed by accused Nos.5, 7 and 8. 3. All the petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.58/2016. 4. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complainant averments are that, one Mr.Ashir.K.P. filed the complaint alleging that himself and his friend Fahaz are doing contract work in L...
The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ho ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
(Prayer: This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 13.09.2010 passed in MVC No.928/2008 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Chitradurga, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.) 1. The Insurer as well as the claimant are before this Court challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, [the Tribunal , for short] in MVC No.928/2008. 2. Briefly stated the facts are: That the injured/claimant instituted a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation contending that he sustained accidental injuries in the vehicular accident which occurred on 19.3.2008, alleging actionable negligence of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-16/H-6691, duly insured with the Insurer. On service of notice, the Insurer entered appearance and resisted the claim. The Tribunal, after appreciatin...
Shaila Chebbi Govind and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka by The Prin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
(Prayers: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Crime No.76/2016 in Annexure-B of respondent Anekal Police Station and to direct to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for initiating action against the fifth respondent for his illegal and unlawful acts stated in the writ petition. These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash charge-sheet dated 10.8.2015 (Annexure-A colly) filed in respect of Crime No.104/2015 of respondent police station and to quash order of the court below dated 29.9.2015 (vide Annexure-B) under which cognizance for the offences under Sections 65, 66(B), 71, 73 and 74 of Information Technology Act and Sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 474, 476 and read with Section 34 of IPC was taken against the petitioners and etc;...
K. Jayaprakash Vs. State of Karnataka, rep. by its Secretary, Panchaya ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed praying to quash the report of Respondent No.2 dated 08.02.2016 at Annexure-F and to quash the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by Respondent No.1 at Annexure-G.) H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. Petitioner is a Government servant. In this writ petition, he has challenged the report of an Upa-Lokayukta dated 08.02.2016 communicated to the competent authority namely, the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ( the Act ) recommending to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ( the Rules ) in respect of the misconduct alleged against him. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the State Government dated 23.02.2016 passed pursuant to the aforesaid report in exercise of the power under Rule 14-A(2)(a) of the Rules whereby it has entrusted the matter to an Upa-Lokayukta to hold an inquiry against the petitioner as per Rule 11 of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »