Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Miss Shruti Yellamma vs The Regional Passport Officer on 25 February, 2014

S.Rahul vs The Deputy Director Of Public on 31 October, 2015

13. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiffs are not intended to make any unlawful gain in filing the present suit seeking change of name. 7 O.S.No.4322/2014 Considering all these aspects I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree for changing the name of the plaintiff No.1 in his school record. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Soumya Banerjee vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2015

12. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff is not an employee in any Government department or any agency. There is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in seeking the relief to change his name in his school records. Therefore, entry of the name of the plaintiff as Soumya Banerjee in his school records is wrong entry, which has to be rectified. Therefore, I answer the issue Nos.1 & 2 in the Affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Yesu Alias Yesudas vs The Secretary on 11 December, 2015

13. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 7 O.S.No.5363/2014 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), the suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff has complied Sec.80 of CPC before the institution of this suit. The plaintiff is not intended to make any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit seeking change of her name. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed in this suit. Since the plaintiff has legally changed his name as Krishna Das, his school records have to be rectified accordingly. Hence, I answer the point no.1 in the affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Mukthamba B.S. Aged 29 Years vs State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2015

12. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), the suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff has complied Sec.80 of CPC before the institution of this suit. The plaintiff is not intended to make any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit seeking change of her name. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed in this suit. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Pazahni Kumar N.S vs The Deputy Director Of Public on 15 October, 2015

12. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), the suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff is not intended to make any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit seeking change of his name. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed in this suit. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kumari Gowramma M vs Karnataka Secondary Education on 26 October, 2015

14. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), the 8 O.S.No.7479/2014 suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff is not intended to make any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit seeking change of her name. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed in this suit. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Shivalingaiah G vs Chief Secretary on 29 October, 2015

13. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff is not an employee in any Government department or any agency. There is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in seeking the relief to change his name and his father's name in his school records. Considering all these aspects, I feel it is just and proper to grant the decree for declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed by the plaintiff in this suit. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative..
Bangalore District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Alankar Hamsalekha vs The Union Of India on 4 December, 2015

12. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 7 O.S.No. 949/2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), the suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff is not intended to make any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit seeking change of her name.
Bangalore District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kum. Tejaswini Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2015

12. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), the suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff is not intended to 8 O.S.No.7135/2014 make any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit seeking change of her name. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as claimed in this suit. Hence I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suhaas B. Batapatti vs Government Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2015

13. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master 7 O.S.No.9455/2014 and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), the suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff has complied Sec.80 of CPC before the institution of this suit. The plaintiff is not intended to make any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit seeking change of his name. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed in this suit. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next