Karnataka Court March 2017 Judgments
Sri. B. N. Srinivas Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF MARCH2017BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Writ Petition No.12419/2017 (LB-ELE) Petitioner Between : B. N. Srinivas S/o. Late P. A. Nanjundappa, Aged about 54 years, R/at DVG Road, Opp: Government Hospital, Bagepalli-561207, Chikkaballapur District. (By Sri V. Lakshminarayana, Senior Counsel for Sri Nagaraj N. Naidu, Advocate) And :1. 2.3. (By Sri V. Sreenidhi, AGA) State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Karnataka Government Secretariat, Vikas Soudha, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Road, Bengaluru-560001. The Deputy Commissioner Chikkaballapur District, Chikkaballapur. Assistant Commissioner Chikkaballapur, Chikkaballapur District. Respondents 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated 13.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-L and the election notice Dated 15.03.2017 issued...
Tag this Judgment!M/S J K Cement Works Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE23d DAY OF MARCH2017PRESENT THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100001 OF2014Connected with SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100002 OF2014SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100003 OF2014BETWEEN: M/S J.K. CEMENT WORKS, No.529/1, SAI NAGAR, MUDDAPUR-587122, UNIT: J K CEMENT LTD., TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT (REPTD. BY ITS UNIT HEAD ANTRIKSHA KUMAR JAIN) (By SRI. V.R.DESAI, SRI.ATUL K ALUR, SRI.N.P.VIVEK MEHTA & SMT.J.TEJAVATHI, ADVOCATES) ... PETITIONER [COMMON]. 2 / 39 Date of Order:23. 03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ( KARNATAKA) VANIJYA TERIGE KARYALAYA GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009. ... RESPONDENT [COMMON]. (By Sri.M.KUMAR, ADDL. GOVT ADV.) STRP No.100001 OF2014IS FILED U/SEC.65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VA...
Tag this Judgment!The Senior Vice President, Vs. K v Shetty S/O. Vasu Shetty
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE23d DAY OF MARCH2017BEFORE THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.64218 OF2012(L-RES) BETWEEN: THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., BELGAUM WORKS, BELGAUM-590010. (By Sri SUNDARASWAMY & RAMDAS ADVs.) ... PETITIONER AND: K V SHETTY S/O. VASU SHETTY AGE:59. YEARS10MONTHS, R/AT: QUARTERS NO.J125 HINDALCO COLONY, NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM-590010. (By Sri.S.L.MATTI ADV.) ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD OF ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, DATED2102/2012 IN KID No.99/2010 (ANNEXURE-M) AND HOLD THAT THE PETITIONER IS JUSTIFIED IN SUPERANNUATING RESPONDENT FROM SERVICE W.E.F. 01/09/2010. 2/32 Date of Order:23. 03.2017 WP No.64218/2012 Hindalco Industries Ltd., Belgaum, Through its Senior Vice President Vs. Sri.K.V.Shetty Belgaum THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP ON17H MARCH2017AND THE SAME HAVIN...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniswamy Vs. S. Armugam and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 04.09.2013 on I.A.No.1 vide Annexure-A in O.S.No.47/2013 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge at Madikeri etc.) 1. Heard. This writ petition is by defendant No.1. Two questions fell for consideration before the trial Court, namely, (i) whether valuation of the estate made by the plaintiff in the suit for grant of probate is in accordance with law, and (ii) whether court fee paid on the application for probate after it was registered as a suit is correct. The trial Court has examined the aforesaid two questions without referring to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Court- Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ( the Act for short) and has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the Act by the impugned order dated 04.09.2013. 2. The prayer in the suit is for grant of probate relating to the will dated 09.04.2002. The trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Nagardas Kanji Shah, Rep. by its Partner and Authorised Signatory ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Sections 8, 10, 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying to 1. appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and differences between the Petitioner and the Respondents in terms of the Clause 23.1 purchase Order Dated: 2nd November 2010, Vide Annexure A, to adjudicate the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents and etc.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court in this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) seeking that a sole Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the dispute and differences between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of Clause 23.1 of the purchase order dated 02.11.2010 at Annexure-A. 2. The petitioner and the respondent have entered into a business transaction whereunder the petitioner was to supply seamless pipes during the period 22.10.2010 to 20.09.2011. The petitioner in that regard claims to have supplied pipes worth Rs.9,11,23,27...
Tag this Judgment!G.B. Lokesh Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Bangalore and A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
(Prayer: This Petition is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India, Praying to Call For The Records Leading to The Issue of Impugned Orders Dated 7.12.2011 Vide Annexure-A And Order Dated 09.03.2012 of The 2nd Respondent Board of Directors (Annexure-B) And After Perusal To Issue A Writ of Certiorari Or Any Other Writ Or Order To Quash The Same With All Consequential Benefits. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager (Legal) in the respondent - Corporation in the year 1992 and was promoted as Manager (Legal) in the year 2003. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 18.09.2000 in the matter of financial assistance extended to M/s. BL Industries (India) Ltd. A reply dated 20.08.2000 was submitted by the petitioner. Charge- sheet dated 02.02.2010 was served upon the petitioner containing 3 charges namely: (i) The Urban Land ceiling clearance certificate bearing CC No.E1/ULC/3768/1976 dated 20/11/1993 produced by the surety and accepted by you, cl...
Tag this Judgment!B. Naveen Vs. Alla Bakash, Major and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/s 30(1) of W.C. Act against the Judgment Dated 20.4.2010 passed in WCA:CR-28/N.F/2006 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Udupi District, Udupi, dismissing the Claim Petition for Compensation.) 1. Appellant is the claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20-04-2010 made in WCA/CR- 28/NF/2006 passed by the Labour Officer -cum- Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as "the WCC " for short) dismissing the claim petition filed by him, has filed this appeal. 2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that he was working as a driver in the auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02/2189 belonging to the first respondent herein and he was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. On 03-03-2005, while he was driving the auto rickshaw as per the instructions of the owner of the auto rickshaw, on Rajajinagar Main Road, a rider of the motorcycle came in a rash and negligent ma...
Tag this Judgment!Asuntha D' Souza Vs. Joyce Paskina D'souza Nee D'mello and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. How Court fee payable for the relief of cancellation of a gift deed in a suit filed for its cancellation is to be computed? This is the question that requires to be answered in this case. 2. This writ petition is by the plaintiff and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 14.8.2013 passed by the Trial Court in the suit in O.S.No. 581/2013. By the impugned order, the Trial Court, by relying on section 38 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ( the Act for short), has directed the petitioner to pay the Court fee on the market value of the plaint schedule property which is the subject-matter of the registered gift deed dated 29.3.2007. The suit is filed by the petitioner to cancel the aforesaid gift deed executed by her and to declare it as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and For certain other reliefs. The relief for cancellation of the gift deed is valued under section 24(d) of the Act. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Jayachandra Reddy Vs. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Financ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records leading to the issue of Impugned Order Dated 01.08.2011 Vide Annexure-A and after perusal to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Appropriate Writ or Order or direction quashing the said Order and to grant all Consequential Benefits in Pursuance of Quashing the Order Dated 01.08.2011 Vide Annexure-A.) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager (Legal) in the respondent - Corporation in the year 1988 and was promoted as Manager (Legal) in the year 2003. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 10.06.2005 in the matter of financial assistance extended to M/s. Precitech Engineering, a partnership firm. A reply was submitted on 06.08.2005. Charge-sheet dated 28.09.2007 was served upon the petitioner containing the following charges; (i) That the interim document is obtained based on the certified copy issued by the Sub-Registrar. However, you did not ensure...
Tag this Judgment!Nike India Private Limited, Rep. Herein by its Company Secretary and A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Sec.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying to; appoint such arbitrator as this Court may deem fit and refer the disputes that have arisen between the Parties for Adjudication by Arbitration under the Master Store Agreement Dated 01.06.2015 Vide Annexure - 'B' and etc.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court in this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) seeking that an Arbitrator be appointed as provided under the Master Store Agreement dated 01.06.2015 to resolve the dispute between the parties. 2. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and engaged in the business of design, marketing and distribution of Athletic Footwear and other accessories claims to have entered into a Master Store Agreement dated 01.06.2015 with the respondent for retail sale of the goods manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the said...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »