Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-15-2010
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The grievance made by the petitioners in these writ petitions are similar. Therefore, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. In W.P. No. 38007/2009. petitioner is carrying on sand quarrying operations in D.K. District. He had filed an application before respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Mangalore, seeking grant of quarrying permit for extraction of ordinary sand from Sy. No. 154-P1 of Aituru village, Puttur Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District. Respondent No. 3 granted quarrying permit vide order dated 27.10.2009 for a period of 90 days permitting him to extract and transport ordinary sand from the said land situated in Kumaradhara river bed. Royalty of Rs. 6,000/- has been collected from the petitioner. Quarrying permit issued is produced at Annexure-A. The quarrying permit granted was valid upto 26.01.2010.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that mineral dispatch permit to transport the extracted ordinar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-15-2010
Reported in : ILR2010KAR3422
1. The grievance made by the petitioners in these writ petitions are similar. Therefore, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. In W.P. No. 38007/2009. petitioner is carrying on sand quarrying operations in D.K. District. He had filed an application before respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Mangalore, seeking grant of quarrying permit for extraction of ordinary sand from Sy. No. 154-P1 of Aituru village, Puttur Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District. Respondent No. 3 granted quarrying permit vide order dated 27.10.2009 for a period of 90 days permitting him to extract and transport ordinary sand from the said land situated in Kumaradhara river bed. Royalty of Rs. 6,000/- has been collected from the petitioner. Quarrying permit issued is produced at Annexure-A. The quarrying permit granted was valid up to 26.01.2010.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that mineral dispatch permit to transport the extracted ordinary sand is granted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-19-2010
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, granting her a decree for partition holding that she is entitled to 1/20th share in A, B and E Schedule properties and not 1/5th share in the suit properties as claimed by her.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The subject matter of the suit is five items of immovable properties. Two are urban properties and three are landed properties, which are more particularly described in the Schedule as, A, B, C, D and E schedule properties.4. The case of the plaintiff is that her father, Sri D.N. Vasantha Kumar was the owner of all the suit schedule properties having acquired the same under the registered partition deed dated 29.03.1967. He died on 31.12.1984, inte state. He left behind him, his wife V. Padma - the first defendant herein, the plaintiff and second defendant, the daughters and defendants-3 and 4, sons, as the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-26-2010
1. Legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore dated 23.2.2004 in O.S.No.15290/2001 is called in question in this appeal by the appellants. Appellants were the defendants and respondent was the plaintiff before the trial court.2. Facts leading to this case are as hereunder: Plaintiff is a registered firm carrying on its business as a developer developing properties in constructing apartments and carrying on allied real estate activities. According to the plaint averments, defendants are the owners of 1-12 acres and 2-20 acres of land, in all 3-32 acres in Sy.Nos.42 & 32/2 of rtayanappashetty Palya, Bannerghatta P.oad. Begur Kobli, Bangalore and the aforesaid land was offered by the defendants to the plaintiff to develop the same under the joint venture scheme. it was agreed that after the completion of the project plaintiff was entitled for 50% of the built up area and the defendants being the land owners were entitled to remaini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-02-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner, working as Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Bangalore, has filed this writ petition, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2001 passed in O.A.No. 1841/2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench (hereinafter, referred to as "the tribunal" for the sake of brevity).2. The facts of the case leading to the tiling of this writ petition are that the petitioner, along with respondent No.9. 10 and 11 who are members of the Karnataka Police Service (KPS) were considered for promotion to the Indian Police Service under the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules. 1954 (hereinafter, referred to as "Rules") and under Indian Police Service (Appointment) by Promotion (Regulation) 1955. (Hereinafter referred to as "Regulation"). The main grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of consideration of the petitioner and respondent Nos.9. 10 unci 11. the aforesaid respondents have been selected but the pe...
Tag this Judgment!