Karnataka Dharwad Court August 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
T. Younis Vs. National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementa ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent-authority- arbitrator order dated 17/05/2012 in proceedings vide Annexure-c, in respect of petitioner these writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in 'b' group, this day, the court made the following order.) H.G. Ramesh, J. (Oral): These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 17.05.2012 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent no.2 - Arbitrator holding that the application filed by respondent no.1-National Highways Authority of India under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 ('the Highways Act') is not barred by limitation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order at Annexure-C. 3. Sub-section (6) of Section 3G of the Highways Act states that subject to the provisions of the Highways Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Arbitration ...
Babusab and Others Vs. Maniksab and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
(Prayer: This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001 passed in R.A No.55/95 on the file of the 1st Addl. District Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.7.95 passed in O.S No.112/90 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge, Hubli.) 1. This is a defendants second appeal against the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below that the schedule properties are all Shetsanadi lands pertaining to Walikarki service which was granted in favour of Peersab, the father of defendants which enure to their benefit and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the property which was re-granted in favour of Peersab. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the plaint. 3. The subject matter of the suit are agricultural lands situated in Unkal Village of Hubli Taluk, originally an inam village Myadkoppa. They are clearly set out in p...
Praveen Chandrashekhar Ganiger Vs. Adiveppa Sangappa Ganiger and Other ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Order 43 rule 1(t) of CPC, 1908 against the orders on I.A.No.1 and II dated 29.07.2009 passed in Civil Misc. No.58/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi, dismissing the IA I and II filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and under Section 151 of CPC.) This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 29.07.2009 dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and consequently, the petition filed under Order X Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside order of dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution also came to be dismissed. 2. The appellant and one Girimallappa and Shivaputrappa filed O.S.No.186/1992 claiming rights in respect of a well which, according to them, situate in the land bearing Sy.Nos.413/1 and 413/2 of Ainapur for declaration and injunction before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Athani. The defendants in the said suit had filed O.S.No.36/1986 claiming that they are the absolute owners of Sy.No.413/1 and the well exclusively falls w...
Late Veerabhadrayya Chandrashekharayya Kadadevaramath Since Deceased b ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
(Prayer: This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2009 passed in R.A No.229/2002 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubli allowing the appeal, filed against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2002 passed in O.S No.272/1995 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Hubli, dismissing the suit filed for declaration and possessions and mense profit.) 1. This is the defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court by which it set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The plaintiff Sri Siddeshwar is the adopted son of Kadayya. The subject matter of the suit is property bearing C.T.S. No. 2890, C.W. Ward No. 2, Hubli, Dharwad District, consisting of a house a open space which is surrounded by the properties which are more...
Coastal Mines and Minerals, a Partnership Firms and Others Vs. State o ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
(Writ Petition Nos.64368-64375/2012 are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, quashing FIR 179/2012 Annexure-J filed by Respondent No.4 against the petitioners in Civil Lines, Police Station, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and also return all the books, documents and other materials belonging to the petitioners seized mentioned in Annexure-R.) 1. These petitions are heard and decided together since certain common issues arise. 2. In first of these petitions, petitioner no.1, M/s. Coastal Mines and Minerals (Hereinafter referred to as CMM, for brevity) is a registered partnership firm. Petitioner no.2, Prasanna V Ghotage (Hereinafter referred to as Ghotage, for brevity), is one of the partners of CMM. Petitioner no.3 has no connection with CMM. He is the General Manager of a proprietory concern, of which, Ghotage is the proprietor Petitioner no.4 claims that he is not at all associated either with Petitioner No.1 or 2. Petitioner no.5 is said to be the Export Manager of a...
Ashok Vs. Pandurang and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
DR. K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. In view of the order dated 31.5.2012 made in W PNo.67926/2011 by learned single judge, Honble Chief Justice by his special order dated 21.6.2012, has referred the following question to answer by this Larger Bench: Whether orders made under section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short, the Land Revenue Act) by the Assistant Commissioner in appeals preferred against the orders made under sub-section (4) or entry certified under sub-section (6) of section 129 of the Land Revenue Act, are subject to revision by Deputy Commissioner under sub-section(3) of section 136 of the Land Revenue Act? 2. Brief facts leading to the Reference may be stated as under: Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents, for quashing the order in No.RTS/AP/109/09-10 dated 23.5.2011 at Annexure-C on the file of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, and order passed in No.RB/RTA/1...
Omanna Since Deceased by His Lrs and Others Vs. Sushibai and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-09-2012
(Prayer: This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 4.4.2000 passed in O.S No.35/88 by the 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn. Belgaum, decreeing the suit for declaration and possession and dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.) 1. This is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4th April 2000 passed in O.S.No.35/1988 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff granting relief of declaration as well as possession in respect of 18 guntas of the suit schedule land from defendant Nos.25 to 35 and declining to grant decree of permanent injunction. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The pedigree of the family is clearly set out in schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint which is not in dispute. 4. The land bearing R.S.No.1389 originally measured 23 acres 36 guntas. It was owned by one Thakkoji. Thakkoji had five sons by name Omanna, Narayan, Parashram, Neelu and Meenaji....
Vishnu Vs. Abdulgani
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in R.A No.134/2000 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Hubli, partly allowing the appeal and modifying the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2000 passed in O.S No.194/1989 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hubli.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of specific performance and is only entitled to decree of recovery of money paid under the agreement of sale. In fact, the defendant has also filed cross-objections challenging the findings of the Courts below regarding the proof of execution of the agreement of sale and payment of consideration under the agreement of sale. 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 the non- agricultural land compr...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›