Karnataka Court November 2002 Judgments

A.S. Srinivasan Vs. the Karnataka State Small Industries Development C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003(1)KarLJ503

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides. The petitioner before me has filed O.S. No. 20 of 1991 against the respondent-Corporation wherein, briefly stated his contention is that he is entitled to claim very heavy compensatory costs and damages from the Corporation for having virtually ruined the project that had been started by him and for having caused to the petitioner the consequential loss which he has claimed on a recurring basis on the footing that but for the alleged illegal acts that the project would have been a success. The suit has been filed in forma pauperis and the petitioner has already carried out one amendment where-under he has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,99,37,945/-. The earner amendment was allowed by the Court after which the petitioner filed one more interlocutory application whereby he has sought a further amendment to add on the claims for the subsequent periods upto March 1999 and to enhance his claim to Rs. 25,79,14,000/-. This has been d...

M. Dinesan Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003(1)KarLJ512; (2003)IILLJ70Kant

K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. The State Bank of India and the candidate for the post of Law Officer in Senior Management Grade, Scale IV in the State Bank of India havepreferred W.A. Nos. 4289 and 4697 of 1999 respectively, challenging the order dated 23-6-1998 passed in M. Dinesan v. State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, 2000(3) Kar. L.J. 369 : ILR 1999 Kar. 3411on the file of learned Single Judge of this Court. Thus, both the writ petitioner and respondent in the writ petition are before us.2. In view of the fact that these two writ appeals are directed against the one and the same order, we proceed to dispose of both the writ appeals by common order.3. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and respondent-Bank as arrayed in the writ petition.4. The brief facts of the case are as under.-That the petitioner, who fulfilled the prescribed qualifications for the post of Law Officers in Senior Management Grade, Sca...

S. Nagaraja and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ88

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The prayers sought for in this writ petition are.--(a) To declare the Inter Water Dispute Act, 1956 and the River Boards Act, 1956 are void and unconstitutional, the legislation traversing beyond Article 262 and Entry 56 of Union List, when the Act included tributaries, if any, in Section 4(4) of the River Boards Act;(b) To quash the constitution of Kaveri Water Dispute, Tribunal;(e) To declare that the agreements of 1894 and 1924 relied on by respondent 3 as defunct, void and otiose, not being saved by Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India.2. Having regard to the nature of the reliefs sought for and the concurrent jurisdiction of Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, learned Counsel for the petitioners was asked to make his submissions on the maintainability of this writ petition. On being heard, the matter was reserved for orders on 11-11-2002, Thereafter, since a memo was filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner ...

Smt. Gayathri Vs. Smt. Clement Mary

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)175; II(2003)BC252; 2003(2)KarLJ120

ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. Based on bouncing of a cheque issued in her favour for a sum of Rs. 11,280/-, the petitioner had initiated proceedings under civil law and filed suit in S.C. No. 3589 of 1995 in the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore, for a sum of Rs. 16,610A against the original judgment-debt- or namely, George, husband of the present respondent. It was decreed on 28-9-1996. So also, in the proceedings initiated under criminal law, in a private complaint filed by her and registered as C.C. No. 16707 of 1993 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the judgment-debtor, was convicted on 8-11-1996 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 22,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and out of said fine amount, a sum of Rs. 11,280/-, being the cheque amount was ordered to be paid to the complainant i.e., petitioner herein. Thereafter, to exe...

M. Indra Malini and ors. Vs. K. Raghavan, Major

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2003)BC310

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard petitioners' learned Advocate. The respondents have been served and are absent. This case is a classic illustration of how the learned Judges in the Trial Courts on many occasions waste precious judicial time on causes that are totally unnecessary and unworthy. This was a recovery suit which was originally filed before the Court of the Addl. I Munsif at Mysore for recovery of a small sum of money and because of the change of monetary jurisdiction the suit was transferred to the Small Causes Court. Obviously the plaintiff was unaware of this and because of his absence the suit was dismissed for default. To compound matters the plaintiff died and it was only after a few months that the petitioners who are his legal heirs came across the papers and took out necessary proceedings for being brought on record but more importantly for restoration of the original suit. The respondent though served did not appear and instead of straightaway restoring the suit and ...

Sannu and anr. Vs. Smt. Sanni Kom. Somayya and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Padmaraj, J. 1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents/ caveators and carefully perused the case papers including the impugned Judgments passed by both the Courts below, with their assistance.2. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. They filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/2 share in the suit properties and also for declaration that the Mutation Entry bearing No. ME 98 of Kerehittlu village is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 are the children of one Somayya Gonda through his 1st wife. The defendant No. 1 Smt. Sanni is the 2nd wife of the said Somayya Gonda. The defendant Nos. 2 to 8 are the children of the deceased through his 2nd wife. The suit properties were the tenanted properties. During the life time of the deceased Somaiah, he filed an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of these lands be...

Smt. Ramakanya Devi and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2003)ACC644; II(2003)ACC267; 2003(1)KarLJ227

ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions and connected petitions have prayed for a declaration that the enhancement of the motor vehicles tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the tax') at Items 6 and 7 in column (3) of Part 'A' in the Schedule given to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 by means of amending Act No. 4 of 2002 as unconstitutional, oppressive, illegal and unenforceable in law. They have also prayed for a direction to the respondents from raising a demand for the recovery of difference of tax on the basis of the enhancement of the tax made.2. The petitioners in these petitions claim that they are transport operators. The first petitioner-Smt. Ramakanya Devi in Writ Petition Nos. 17878 to 17923 of 2002 is the mother of the second petitioner-Suresh Kumar who represents the 2nd petitioner-M/s. Sharma Transports The 1st petitioner in the said petitions, Smt. Ramakanya Devi claims that she is the registered owner of two tourist vehicles set o...

Smt. Parvatamma Vs. Sampath Kumar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ91

ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner calls in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 11-6-1999 passed in H.R.C. No. 513 of 1998 on the file of the X Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the 'old Act' for short).2. The petitioner filed the petition for eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the old Act alleging that she requires the petition premises for purpose of running a cycle shop by her son Srinivas. The Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner's need was not real on finding that the petitioner let out the premises adjoining the petition premises in the year 1997 after it fell vacant. The reasoning adopted by the Court below is that if really the petitioner needed the premises to run the cycle shop business, she would have certainly occupied the vacant premises instead of letting it out again. In that view of the matter, the Court below d...

Smt. K.N. Saraswathamma Vs. Smt. Sarala

Court: Karnataka

ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) the petitioner-landlord prays for setting aside the order dated 6.11.1998 passed in H.B.C.No. 1493/96 by the XVIIIth Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act.2.The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision, briefly stated, are as under:The landlady filed the petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the repealed Act for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the accommodation that was available with her was not sufficient for her requirement. The son of the petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1. The respondent examined herself but did not submit to cross-examination by the petitioner. The Court-below came to the conclusion that the requirement of the petitioner is reasonable but proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner...

Rajeshwari and ors. Vs. Silvia Florance and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Padmaraj, J. 1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the case records including the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court, whereby it has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants.2. The defendants are the appellants herein. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the 1st Appellate Court dated 20.6.2002 whereby the 1st Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court in respect of plaintiffs 2 and 3. By the impugned judgment and Decree, the 1st Appellate Court has held that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 shall get equal share each alongwith the defendants 1 to 4 in the service benefits of late Shivaraj Patil. It has further held that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendants 1 to 4 will have equal shares in the service benefits of late Shivaraj Patil subject to the condition that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 will get their shares in the family pension t...