Karnataka Court December 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.
Lakshmidevamma Vs. Divisional Controller K.S.R.TC.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the impugned endorsement dated 29.1.2014 vide annexure-a passed by the respondent.) 1. The widow of the deceased workman/M. Chokkappa, is before this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 29.01.2014 as per Annexure-A passed by the respondent Corporation to appoint the petitioner s son on compassionate grounds, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was working as a driver in the respondent Corporation. On certain allegations of misconduct, he was dismissed from service on 17.12.2004. Thereafter, he died on 14.12.2006. The legal representatives of the deceased workman i.e., the petitioner and her children raised industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Act for short) for adjudication. The Labour Court, considering the entire material on record, by award date...
Chokkalingam Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, Rept. by its Chairman-Cum- ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: This RSA is filed u/s 100 of CPC, against the Judgment and decree dated 20.04.2011 passed in R.A.No.23/2009 on the file of the PRL. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., KGF, dismissing the Appeal and Confirming the Judgment and decree dated 19.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.43/2007 on the file of the PRL. Civil Judge (JR.DN) and Addl, JMFC, KGF.) 1. The plaintiff aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in dismissing his suit has preferred this regular second appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. Perused the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is a house property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since 1997 having got the same from one Smt. Jayasheeli on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The said Smt. Jayasheeli had filed a suit in O.S.No.247/2000 against the plaintiff before the Ist Addl. Civ...
Venkatesh, Prop. Sri Venkateshwara Textiles and Others Vs. State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: W.P. Nos. 35125-26/2015 are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter /order dated. 13.07.2015 [annex-J] issued by the R-1. Quash the letter dated. 25.7.2015 issued by the Housing Commissioner, K.H.B. Bangalore [Annexe-J1 and J2] and etc., W.P.Nos. 33504-519/2015 are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter/dated 13.07.2015 (annex-J) issued by the Under Secretary-1, to the government, Housing Department, the R1 herein. Direct the Karnataka Housing Board, the R-2 herein to forthwith deliver possession of the houses allotted by it in favour of the petitioners and etc., W.P. Nos. 38289/2015 and 38553-38557/2015 are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the letter/order dated 13.7.2015 [annex-J] issued by the R-1 and quash the letter dated.25.7.2015 issued by the Housing Commissioner, K.H.B, Bangalore [annex-J1, J6] and etc.,) 1. The petitioners...
V. Basappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka Dept. of Urban Developmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash plan dated 17.06.2013 issued by 2nd respondent for putting up commercial complex in site no.21, bel house co-operative society, Bangalore 560094, vide Annexure-F and etc.) 1. The prayers in the writ petition are quoted below; "i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing plan dated 17.06.2013 vide L.P. No. Ad.COM/WST/0122/13-14 issued by the second respondent for putting up commercial complex in site No.21, BEL House Co-operative Society, Bangalore 560 004 as per Annexure-F. ii) Declare that the layout formation of site in civic amenity area by fourth respondent is unauthorized, illegal, contrary to law; iii) Direct respondent to restore site No.21 along without other sites for civic amenity as per the plan layout approved by third respondent; and iv) grant such other further relief as may deem fit in the circumstances...
The Union of India Represented by Secretary and Others Vs. S.M. Vasant ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter /order dated. 18.07.2016 [annexure-A] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru in OA No. 170/01689/2015. Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. 2. Mr. Kamalesan P., learned Counsel appears for the respondent and waives notice of rule. 3. The present petition is directed against the order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of convenience), whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. directing the applicant for 3rd MACP benefit. 4. We have heard Mr. B. Pramod, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. P.Kamalesan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent for final disposal of the matter. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for both the sides are on agreement on the point that the present matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal, since in simi...
Melvin D Souza and Another Vs. Carmine Rebello
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
(Prayer: These Review Petitions are filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying to review the Order Dated: 13/08/2013 passed in RP No. 50/2013 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.) 1. Both these review petitions arise out of a common order dated 13.08.2013 passed in R.P.No.50/2015 arising out of W.P.No.1762/2005. 2. Office has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the review petition on the ground that review petition has been filed seeking review of the order passed in R.P.No.50/2013. In other words, office is of the view that how another review can be maintained. On this aspect, I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. 3. On perusal of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, it is clear that any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred (b) .... (c) .... and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercis...
g.s. Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
WP.46912/2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.46912/2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN G.S. SIDDARAJU, S/O B. SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT59YEARS, R/A NO.201/6, SREE RUDRESH KRUPA, 3RD MAIN, 7TH CROSS, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANGERE-577 002. (By Sri VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADV.) AND1 STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 001. THE TAHSILDHAR, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.2.3. ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R1-R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD:5.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE R-3 AUTHORITY AND ETC. WP.46912/2016 2 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER1 In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging ...
Somappa S/O. Mallappa @ Madivalappa Yakkundi, Vs. Imamsab S/O. Fakrusa ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Dec-05-2016
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA M.F.A NO.21854 OF2012c/w M.F.A. Nos.21203/2012, 21204/2012, 22595/2010 [MV]. IN MFA No.21854/2012: BETWEEN SOMAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA @ MADIVALAPPA YAKKUNDI, AGE:56. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL, R/O. KORAVINAKOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. ... APPELLANT (By SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV.) AND1 2. IMAMSAB S/O. FAKRUSAB BALIKAYI AGE:61. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. VAKKUND, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS ( RESPONDENTNO.1 DISPENSED BY SRI. N R KUPPELUR ADV. FOR R2) MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29-12-2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.609/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, 2 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. ...
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Represented by Executive ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Award Dated 23.11.2011 passed in LAC No.243/2010 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore.) H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. Whether vakalatnama filed by a new advocate is to be accepted in the absence of 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, is the short question for consideration in this case. 2. Registry has raised an objection on the vakalatnama of the appellant filed by Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, advocate; objection is that the vakalatnama does not contain 'no objection' of the advocate already on record for the appellant. 3. We have heard Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, learned counsel, on the objection raised by the Registry. The learned counsel submitted that a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. Hence, a party cannot be compelled to obtain 'no objection' from the ad...
The Regional Director ESI Corporation Vs. New Mangalore Port Limited W ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-2016
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under section 82(2) of ESI act against the order dated 31.12.2001 passed in ESI application no.39/87 on the file of the ESI court (industrial tribunal), bangalore, allowing the application filed under section 75(g) of the ESI act.) Aravind Kumar, J. 1. This appeal by Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short Corporation ) is filed challenging the order dated 31.12.2001 passed by the ESI Court on an application filed by the respondent under Section 75(g) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ESI Act). 2. Facts in brief are as under: A notification dated 22.01.1986 was issued by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of the power under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act by extending the provisions of the ESI Act to certain areas, in and around the city of Mangalore, since the said Section enables the appropriate Government to issue notification in respect of any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »