Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Writ Petitions Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Against the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's Order Dated 2.3.2010 Dismissing the Applicants' Claims in Applications No.1212-1250/2010. The Petitioners Sought Quashing of the Tribunal's Order and Alleged Illegality in the Proceedings Before the Tribunal.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-10-28 17:10:46
  • 169
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

KAHC010587942010_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (KAR) (09) 19

Writ Petition Nos.6842-6880/2010 (S-KAT) c/w Writ Petition Nos.15002/2011 & 21131-21146/2011, 16948-16995/2010, 8215/2010, 8715/2010 & 8906/2010, 10106/2010 & 12726-12763/2010, 17294-17327/2010, 17481/2010 & 17485-17490/2010 & 17723-17727/2010, 19401/2011 & 21520-21530/2011, 24525/2010, 41905-41908/2010 & 6747-6758/2011, 908-911/2011, 103593/2014 & 103620-103657/2014 (S-KAT)

2014-09-23

D.H. Waghela, Chief Justice, H.G. Ramesh, Justice

Sri H. Subramanya Jois, Sr. Counsel for Sri K.C. Shanthakumar (for petitioners); Sri Madhusudan R Naik, Sr. Advocate as Spl. Counsel along with Sri Ravindra D.K., Advocate for R1 & R2; Sri J Prashanth for M/s Ravivarma Kumar Associates for R3, R8-R10, R13, R15, R18, R20, R21, R23, R24, R25 & R27 – R31, 33-41; Sri S M Babu, Advocate for R4, R5, R14, R16, R17,R19 & R22; Sri C.M.Nagabhushan & Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocates for R6, R7 & R26; Sri H Kantharaj, Advocate for C/R12; Sri V Lakshminarayan, Sr. Counsel for Sri L. Vijayakumar, Advocate for R42; Sri D N Nanjundareddy, Sr. Counsel for Nityanand, Advocates for R11 & R32

Mahesh A C, Suresh C, Shivananjegowda B N, Mahesh Jalwadi, H G Somashekar, K Rajesh, K Yogendra and others

State of Karnataka, Commissioner for Transport, B. P. Naveen, Hussain Sab, Malleshappa P Sajjan, Vinay Kumar, Santosh Kumar Kompi, Kavitha T N, Mohammed Sharief M Shekhaji, Raghavendrachari, Uday S Naik, Basavaraj Biradar, Gopal S, Shivappa Alagawadi, Murthy Naik K, Santosh M Patil, Dattatray Maski, Dundappa Shankar Naikodi, Ravishankar Nagathan, Parveez M G, Mahesh Kumar Menasinkai, Panchakshari Alavandi, Mahadevappa Talawar, Ningappa F Hosamani, Prakash Hulle, Ayyalappa, Jagadish H S, Raghavendra H V, Anantharamu, Amulya, Asha N R, Raju Bassappa Alagundi, Srinivas Murthy G N, Puttaswamy R, Subhash M S, Raghavendra A R, Ranganath, Basavaraju K C, Vidya N, P Pradeep Kumar, Prakash T M, Anand Reddy

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought quashing of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order dated 2.3.2010 in Applications No.1212-1250/2010 and a declaration that the proceedings culminating in that order were illegal and unsustainable

Filing Reason

The petitioners were aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal passed on 2.3.2010 in Applications No.1212-1250/2010

Previous Decisions

The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal passed an order on 2.3.2010 in Applications No.1212-1250/2010

Procedural History

The petitioners filed Applications No.1212-1250/2010 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which passed an order dated 2.3.2010. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The writ petitions were heard together.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal writ petition transport department appointment quashing of order Articles 226 and 227

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remits Appeal for Fresh Consideration on Merits Due to Procedural Irregularities. High Court's Remand Lacked Justification as Existing Evidence Sufficiency Was Not Assessed Under Order XLI Rule 23A of CPC. 2026-11-01 14:32:58
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Employees' Right to Bonus Under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 — Clarifies Applicability Despite Authorised Controller Appointment. 2026-11-01 14:32:57
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Murder natural justice acquittal Compensation burden of proof land acquisition limitation jurisdiction Article 226
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Upholds Developer's Challenge to Arbitration Award — ...

High Court Quashes School Tribunal's Order on Employee Reinstatement Due to Procedural Irr...

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction and Death Sentence in POCSO Case Due to Credible Testimon...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against High Court's Reversal of Trial Court's Decree on Wi...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Accused in IPC Sections 376, 420, 493, 494, and 495 Case...

Supreme Court Restores Appellate Tribunal's Order on Tariff Determination Due to Breach of...

Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Challenge to High Court Orders in Civil Appeal — Legal...

Lost Your Password?