Karnataka High Court

Scroll Down To Discover

Sort by:

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Upholds CAT Order Directing NIMHANS to Grant Child Care Leave to Employee. Child Care Leave is a Statutory Right Under Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, Not a Discretionary Benefit....

The petitioner, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench, dated 14.02.2024 in OA No.38/2023. T...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Against Conviction for Rash Driving and Causing Death by Negligence — Confirms Concurrent Findings of Guilt Under Sections 279 and 304A IPC....

The revision petitioner, Kishor N, was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court IV, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.7848/2018 for offences under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Allows Refund of Court Fees in DRT Proceedings When Main Petition Becomes Infructuous — Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 13. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has inherent power to order refund of court fees under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 when the main petition is disposed of as infructuous....

The petitioners, Sri Narayana Murthy H M and Smt. Chandrakala R., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Debt...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Workmen's Compensation Case — Supervisor Held to be Workman Under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The court upheld the Commissioner's finding that the deceased was a loader (manual worker) and thus a 'workman' under the Act, rejecting the insurance company's contention that a supervisor is excluded....

The case involves an appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the award dated 13.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner for W...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Refund of Court Fees in DRT Proceedings When Main Petition Becomes Infructuous — Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 Applicable. The court held that the DRT erred in rejecting the refund application without considering Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for refund when a case becomes infructuous....

The petitioners, Sri Narayana Murthy H M and Smt. Chandrakala R., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. They so...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Workmen's Compensation Case — Supervisor Held to be Workman Under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Deceased working as loader in goods lorry is a 'workman' under Section 2(1)(n) of the Act, and the employer-employee relationship was established....

The case involves an appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company against an award of compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Udupi, in favor of the claimant, Smt. Gauri, the wi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Property Suit — Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Set Aside. Court holds that a suit for declaration and injunction is not barred by limitation when the plaintiff is in possession and the cause of action is continuous....

The appellant, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the original suit, challenged the order of the First Appellate Court which had reversed the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Property Suit — Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Set Aside. Court holds that a suit for declaration and injunction is not barred by limitation when the plaintiff is in possession and the cause of action is continuous....

The appellant, defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the original suit, challenged the order of the First Appellate Court which had set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) ...