Karnataka Court February 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.
P.S. Jayashree Vs. Ing Vysa Bank Limited, Bangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
1. This petition is directed against the Award dated 10-12-2010 in C.R. No. 11 of 2006 whereby the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ( Tribunal for short) has rejected the reference made by the petitioner under Section 10(2-A) and 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act , for short). 2. The brief facts of the case are.- That the petitioner was taken as a Trainee in the respondent-Bank by order dated 14-11-1978 and after her successful training in clerical duties, she was placed on probation by an order dated 25-9-1979 on monthly salary of Rs. 190/- with effect from 1-7-1979 for the post of clerk and was requested to attend the duties of Shroff in exigencies which was in accordance with the rules of the probationary scheme. The petitioner was working as a Clerk at Mangalore Branch of the respondent 1-Bank and was transferred to Zone-I, Corporate Office, Bangalore by order dated 19-7-1996. Pursuant to the said order, she was relieved from Mangalore Br...
Sanjeev Vs. Dundappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
(This MFA is filed U/Sec. 30(1) of WC Act 1923, against the Judgment and Award dated 26.11.2011 passed in W C A S R No. 21/2011 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Belgaum District, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of Compensation.This MFA coming on further for orders this day, the Court delivered the following)1. Though the matter is posted for Orders this day, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.2. The above appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 26.11.2011 made in W.C.A.S.R. No. 21/2011 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Belgaum awarding compensation of Rs. 1,64,640/- after one month of adjudication at 12% per annum.3. It is the case of the appellant that on 11.8.2008 at about 11.00 a.m. when he was working as Labour under the 1st respondent...
Sreeramappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri Aditya Sondhi, appearing for learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the BDA.2. The facts of the case are that the father of petitioner 1 Erappa, son of Basappa, was the khatedar in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 81/2 of Arekere Village, totally measuring 1 acre 26 guntas and that he is said to have inherited the same and was in settled possession. After the death of Erappa-petitioner 1, who had succeeded to the property and petitioners-2 to 6, who are the children of petitioner 1, are in joint occupation of the land. The RTC reflects the name of the petitioner from the year 1973-74 onwards till the date of the petition and continue to show the land as held by the father of petitioner 1.3. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in order to form a layout under a Scheme known as Byrasandra Tavarekere Madivala VI Stage had issued a notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 19...
Sreeramappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Housing a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the scheme known as "Byrasandra-Tavarekere-Madivala VI Stage" in respect of schedule property situated at Hulimavu Village, Bangalore South Taluk, notified by Preliminary Notification dated 08.09.1987 as per Annexure-A of respondent No.2 and the final notification dated 28.07.1990 as per Annexure-B issued by respondent No.1 have lapsed under section 27 of the BDA Act and grant consequential relief/s thereto and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' group this day, the Court made the following:) 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Aditya Sondhi, appearing for learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the BDA. 2. The facts of the case are that the father of petitioner No.1, Erappa, son of Basappa, was the khatedar in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.81/2 of Arekere village, totally measuring 01 acre 26 gunt...
D.R. Lakshipl Narayana Guptha Vs. K.R. Archana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 12 (1)(c) and 12 (b)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is null and void, on the ground that the respondent had suppressed the material evidence as to his ailment from which she was suffering. 3. The Court of the V. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore had allowed the petition by a judgment and decree dated 28-11-2013. The respondent thereafter had preferred an appeal before this Court in appellate jurisdiction in MFA 829/ 2014, since there was no medical expert examined on either side. This Court, by its judgment dated 19-8-2014, had set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Court below and permitted the petitioner and the respondent to lead additional evidence in regard to the medical condition of the respo...
Sanjeev S/O Annappa Suladal Vs. Dundappa S/O Shivarudrappa Badakar
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
:1. : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE12H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA M.F.A. NO.24541/2012 (WC) BETWEEN SANJEEV, S/O ANNAPPA SULADAL, AGE:23. YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O ANKALE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. (BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADV.) ... APPELLANT AND1 2. SHRI DUNDAPPA, S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA BADAKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O ANKALE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM, THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.N.RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2, R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) :2. : THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WC ACT1923 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED2611.2011 PASSED IN W C A S R NO.21/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA COMING ON FURTHER FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOL...
Kumara Banu Vs. Muthoot Finance Limited and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Pradeep D. Waingankar, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, in Crl.R.P. No. 63/2011. 2. Petitioner lodged a complaint before Surathkal Police Station against one Mayyadi and his wife Jubeda for the offences punishable under Sections 407 and 420 of IPC which came to be registered in Crime No. 41/2011. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused persons known to her. They requested her to give her gold ornaments for the purpose of their business. They promised to give commission to the petitioner out of the profits earned by them in their business. They also told the petitioner that they would return the gold ornaments within one month. Believing the words of accused, the petitioner parted with her gold ornaments to the accused. The accused failed to return the gold ornaments even after one month. On the other hand, they left the village without...
Abdulrajak and Others Vs. Abdul Rahiman and Another
Court: Karnataka Kalaburagi
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
(Prayer: These writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue order or writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing order on I.A's No.12 dated 01.08.2015 and I.A.No.13, 14 and 15 dated 07.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.54/2006, by the learned III Addl. Civil Judge, Vijayapura, vide Annexure's 'F' and 'N' and consequently allow the applications.) 1. Heard Sri Ashok S. Kinagi, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners/defendants. Respondents are served and unrepresented. Perused the records. 2. Defendants in O.S.No.54/2006 filed an application in I.A.No.12 under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. seeking permission to produce documents indicated in the list enclosed to said application. By order dated 01.08.2015 - Annexure-F, said application has been rejected on the ground that without prayer for reopening of the case, said application is not maintainable and also on the ground that it has been filed to drag on the proceedings. Thereafter, th...
Leeladhara Vs. Vivek Mohan Shenoy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the impugned order dtd.18.12.2015 passed in Rrp.No.27 of 2015 on The file of Principal session Judge, D.K. Mangalore confirming the order Dtd.23.11.2015 Passed In Hrc No.2/2015 On the file of Principal Civil Judge Mangalore Vide Annex-A and B And Consequently allow the Rrp No.27 of 2015 as Prayed for.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.12.2015 passed in RRP No.27/2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, confirming the order dated 23.11.2015 passed in HRC No.2/2015 as at Annexures-A and B to the petition. 2. The respondent herein has instituted an eviction petition under Section 27 (2) (p) and (r) and 42 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the Act' for short). The petitioner herein has filed objections not only disputing the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent,...
Kumar K.C. and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
S. Abdul Nazeer, J. The petitioners are the tenants of different premises belonging to Town Municipal Council Channarayapatna, Taluk, Hassan District ( TMC for short).The period of tenancy has come to an end long ago. Notices are issued to the petitioners calling upon them to vacate the premises in their possession within one month to enable the TMC to auction the leasehold rights of the said premises. The petitioners have called in question the legality and correctness of the said notices in these writ petitions. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that as per the Government Circular at Annexure D dated 26.10.2009, the petitioners are entitled for renewal of the lease period for a further period of 12 years. This circular has been issued in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ( Act for short). It is submitted that as per the said circular, a recommendation was sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, to the State...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »