Karnataka Court January 2001 Judgments

N.M. Madhu Kumar Vs. Raju and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2001Kant495

ORDER1. These two CRPS are against the order refusing to entertain the documents filed by the petitioners before the Trial Court under Order 13 Rule 1. The Trial Court considered the nature of the documents and came to the conclusion that the documents are irrelevant and reception of such documents is not proper.2. Heard Mr. Rajeev, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Natraj, appearing for the respondents and the cases as taken up for disposal by consent of parties.3. Order 8 Rule l(2) has been introduced in CPC by Karnataka Amendment ROC 2526/59. The Karnataka Amendment reads as follows :'Order 8, Rule 1(2) The defendant shall endorse on the written statement or annex thereto a list of documents on which he relies, whether in his possession or power or not, as evidence in support of his defence or case, and the provisions of Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII of this Code shall as far as may apply thereto.(3) Along with the written statement the defendant shall file into ...

S. Sundar Raj Vs. Vijayendra Kumar and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ468

1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 25-11-2000 passed in I.A. IV in O.S. No. 4736 of 2000 on the following facts. 2. The defendant is the appellant and respondents are the plaintiffs and they would be referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction. According to the plaint averment, the plaintiffs are entitled for free flow of air and light from 'B' Schedule property and any attempt on the part of the defendant in putting up the construction required to be injuncted. The Trial Court granted the injunction on the ground that the proposed construction conies in the way of enjoyment of the property belonging to plaintiff. An application was filed seeking to vacate the said order, The Trial Judge heard the matter and after hearing he rejected the I.A. The said order of rejection is challenged before me. 3. I have heard Sri G.S. Vishweshwara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant and Sri B.L. Jagad...

Smt. Ningamma and ors. Vs. Smt. Sakamma and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2001Kant339; ILR2001KAR2586; 2002(3)KarLJ248

Chidananda Ullal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-11-1996 in case No. P and SC 70 of 1987 on the file of the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. In passing the said order, the learned City Civil Judge while allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 heldthat the respondents 1 to 3 (they were the petitioners before the City Civil Judge) were entitled to for a succession certificate to an extent of 3/4th of the total amounts available in the hands of the Bangalore City Corporation on account of the death of late V. Puttaswamy, the husband of the respondent 1 and the father of the respondents 2 and 3 who was working as 'Malaria Gangman' in 'Q' sub-division. 2. The City Civil Judge in the impugned order had also directed further the respondents 1 to 3 herein to obtain the details of the total amount of money available towards death relief fund and DCRG, family pension and other monies available in the account of the said V. Puttaswamy for ...

Mariyappa Vs. Smt. Sowbhagyamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2002)ACC536; AIR2001Kant274

ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The revision is taken up for final disposal by consent.2. The revision petition is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the dismissal of an application for appointing a Commissioner to ascertain the present market value of the suit property u/S. 18 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Section 18 of the said Act reads as follows:'. . .18. Inquiry and commission:--For the purpose of deciding whether the subject-matter of a suit or other proceeding has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient, the Court may hold such inquiry as it considers proper and may, if it thinks fit, issue a commission to any proper person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and to report thereon to the Court.'2-A. In fact in ILR 1982 Karnataka 970 (sic) in the case of Ramakrishna v. C.S.I., this Court has held that the Court has power to enquire regarding Court-fee on market value, even if the issues are fra...

Shenoy K.G. Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2001)IILLJ655Kant

Mohamed Anwar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.2. The petitioner, who is an official of respondent No. 1-bank, has prayed to quash the order No. CO: IRD: 8540: 96: dated December 28, 1996 under Annexure Q and the order bearing No. CO; IRD; 1917 of 1997 dated March 14, 1997 vide Annexure T. Annexure Q is the order, dated December 28, 1996, of the disciplinary authority passed against petitioner pursuant to enquiry against him on the charges of misconduct, accepting the findings of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer and imposing on the petitioner the major penalty of reduction by 3 stages in timescale of pay. Annexure T dated March 14, 1997 is the order of the appellate authority passed in the petitioner's appeal preferred before him challenging the Disciplinary Authority's order at Annexure Q, dated December 28, 1996. The whole of this order of Appellate Authority at Annexure T passed disposing of the petitioner's appeal is relevant for the purpose of effective disposal of ...

Rana Enterprises, Bangalore and Others Vs. State Bank of Mysore, Peeny ...

Court: Karnataka

R. Gururajan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the judgment-debtors challenging the order dated 28-7-2000 rejecting their application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 151 of the CPC in Execution Case No. 1101 of 1997 by the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on the following facts.2. The appellants are the judgment-debtors and the respondents are the decree-holder and the auction purchaser. They would be referred as per the rankings before the Trial Court.3. The decree holder-State Bank of Mysore filed a suit in O.S. No. 2533 of 1986 against the judgment debtor-defendants seeking for a judgment and decree before the Trial Court. The matter was contested. The Trial Court decreed the suit against the defendants/judgment-debtors. An execution case was filed in Execution Case No. 1101 of 1997. There is another decree suffered by the judgment-debtors and another execution case in Execution Case No. 3 of 2000 is by the bank against the judgment-debtors. The said execu...

Girish Vs. the Chairman, Malaprabha Grameena Bank, Gadag and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ500

ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Petitioner herein is admittedly the brother of deceased Shekharaiah S. Mulagundamath who was working as a clerk in the respondent-Bank when he died in harness on 26-10-1995 leaving behind his wife and a minor son aged about one and a half years. It is not in dispute that the deceased died of the pernicious disease of AIDS and that his wife Smt. Iravva also suffers from this deadly disease. Therefore, during his lifetime, the deceased himself had given his representation as per Annexure-A, dated 8-10-1995 to respondent-Bank stating that because of his said fatal ailment, he was sure to die at any moment and in the event of his death, his brother/petitioner may be employed on compassionate ground so that he could support his wife ailing with the disease of AIDS, and his minor, son. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for petitioner that a representation dated 24-11-1997 was also submitted by the petitioner to respondent-Bank for considerat...

R. Swaminathan and anr. Vs. the Manipal Academy of Higher Education an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR1337; 2002(1)KarLJ444

ORDERThe Court1. These two petitioners have approached this Court with their respective writ petitions praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the orders bearing No. MAHE/EST/REG/99 marked Annexure-E and No. MAHE/EST/REG/99 marked Annexure-F, both dated 28-1-1999, passed by respondent-Institution discharging them from service during their probation period; and to direct respondent to continue their services till the end of their probation period and confirm them in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The undisputed facts are that petitioner 1-S. Swaminathan was appointed as Assistant Professor in the educational institution of respondent under order dated 23-12-1997 vide Annexure-C. One of the conditions of appointment was: '1. You will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining. During this period, if your work and conduct is foundsatisfactory, you will be confirmed in the post of Assistant Professor. Otherwise your ...

United India Insurance Company Limited, Gulbarga Vs. Siddanna Nimbanna ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001ACJ1774; ILR2001KAR1670; 2001(3)KarLJ240

1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the judgment of the First Additional District Judge in MVC No. 5237 of 2000. The facts in brief are as under:The first respondent-insured obtained an insurance policy in respect of his car bearing No. KA 33 M 4578. The first respondent filed a claim petition in MVC No. 525 of 1997 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 9-8-1997 involving his own car. The said matter was contested. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition and directed the driver and the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 2,49,000/- jointly and severally to the appellant/petitioner and an interest of 6% is also granted. This judgment is challenged in this appeal.2. The only contention urged by the Counsel for the insurance company is that a legal error has been committed by the Tribunal in granting compensation to the owner on account of the negligence of his driver. According to him, the policy does not cove...

K.L. Narayan Murthy and Another Vs. Rajini and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2001Kant168; 2001(3)KarLJ84

1. This appeal by the defendants-appellants is filed aggrieved by the order dated 9-2-2000 passed on LA. I in O.S. No. 203 of 2000 by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 203 of 2000 seeking for an injunction against the appellant on the ground that the appellants/defendants are putting up construction over the first floor of the building in violation of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Representations have been made by the plaintiff/respondent to the Corporation about the deviation committed by appellant/defendants in putting up construction in the suit Schedule property. The defendants/appellants are putting up their construction abutting property of plaintiff/respondents. The deviation in construction would cause obstruction for free passage of air and light to the plaintiffs property. Under these circumstances a suit came to be filed. LA. No. I was filed under Order39, Rules 1 and 2 by plaintiff/respondent seeking ad inter...