Karnataka Court February 2003 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.
Basamma Vs. Taluk Legal Services Committee and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant242; 2003(2)KarLJ439
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J. 1. Petitioner is the mother. 2nd respondent is her daughter. It is the property right which has taken a better hold against the natural affection of the mother and daughter in this case. The 2nd respondent-daughter filed a suit in O.S. No. 60 of 1999 against her mother, petitioner herein on the file of the Civil Judge, Bhalki for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of 34.29 acres of agricultural land in Sy. No. 215 situate at Dongapur Village. The Trial Judge ordered issue of summons and directed the suit to be called on 23-7-1999. On 19-6-1999, the case was advanced at the request of the parties and the writ petitioner is alleged to have filed a written statement admitting the entire suit claim and the parties also filed a joint memo for referring the matter to the Legal Services Authority under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('Act' for short). The learned Civil Judge, acting on the memo, referred the matter to ...
A.S. Gupta and anr. Vs. V. Ramachandra Naidu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ641
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is directed against the order dated 30-9-2002 passed by the Court of the XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, SCCH 19 in HRC No. 10638 of 1992.2. The landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a), (h) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 as against the respondents therein. The respondent 1 was a Private Limited Company and the respondent 2 was the Managing Director. The premises is a residential premises comprising of ground floor portion, first floor portion with a garage at Park Road, Tasker Town, Bangalore, which is a residential extension of Bangalore City.3. The landlord alleged that the rate of rent is Rs. 1,400/- per month and the tenant was in arrears of rent. That the premises was required for his use and occupation, particularly, for the members of his family as his sons, one of whom was married and the other son was al...
K.B. Jayaram and anr. Vs. Navineethamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant241; 2003(3)KarLJ225
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, the plaintiffs-appellants herein rely upon an unstamped agreement executed between them and the defendants. The document allegedly executed on 24-8-1998 inter alia stipulates that the possession of the property covered by the same has been transferred to the plaintiffs. That appears to be the version of the plaintiffs also as according to them, the possession of the entire property covered by the agreement of sale stands transferred to them by the defendants-vendors thereof. What is significant is that the document was executed after the amendment to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, whereby an agreement relating to sale of immovable property wherein, possession of the property is delivered or is agreed to be delivered, would attract the same stamp duty as is payable on a conveyance at No. 20 of the Schedule on the market value of the property. It follows that the agreement to sell relied upon by the plaint...
Narasimha Jayadevarao Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ239
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These two revision petitions are filed by the petitioner against the common order dated 20-9-1988 passed by the land reforms Appellate Authority. Petitioner and respondent 3 are common in both these petitions. They were rival claimants seeking grant of occupancy rights for the same lands among others. The lands involved in these petitions are Sy. Nos. 29 and 31 of Vaddinakoppa Village in Sirsi Taluk.2. Petitioner filed application before the Land Tribunal seeking grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 7-26 acres in Sy. No. 29 and 2-10 acres in Sy. No. 31 while 3rd respondent filed application for 3-33 acres in Sy. No. 29 and 2-25 acres in Sy. No. 31. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 29-12-1981 granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. In respect of 3rd respondent, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights for Sy. No. 31 and rejected the claim for Sy. No. 29. Against the rejection, 3rd respondent filed Appeal No. DAA.AP 60 of 1986. Petitioner fi...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. P.M. Zeenath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ1774
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel representing the respective parties. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, : [2002]SUPP2SCR456 , the insurance company which was the original appellant No. 1 applied for transposition as the respondent No. 5 and the original insured remained as the sole appellant. Mr. Bhagavan, learned Counsel who represents the original claimants, viz., respondent Nos. 1 to 4 raised a preliminary objection wherein he has pointed out to us that as far as the sole surviving appellant is concerned who was the original insured, that no objections had been filed before the Tribunal nor was the proceeding contested by this party and it is his submission therefore that having regard to the fact that the present appellant has virtually been treated as ex pane before the Claims Tribunal, that the present appeal should be straightaway dismissed and that no interference with the original order is ...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. S.S. Mukharam and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC425; 2004ACJ1984; 2003(3)KarLJ117
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1.This appeal at the instance of the insurance company arises from the judgment and award dated 1-8-1998 passed in MVC No. 1756 of 1990 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore under which the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 45,990/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum andcosts.2. The respondent 1-claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- towards the injuries suffered by him in the road accident alleged to have occurred on R.V. Road in front of Pai Hotel on 17-3-1990 at about 1.30 p.m. The petition was opposed by the insurance company. One of the grounds urged on behalf of the insurance company was that the driver who drove the vehicle in question did not possess an appropriate licence for driving the said vehicle and, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. The Tribunal framed the following issues as arising for its consideration:(i) Whether the accident in question occurre...
Hydromatik Belgaum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(154)ELT49(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner submitted a declaration on 24-12-1998 under Section 89 of the Finance Act r/w Rule 3(1)(b) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Rules, 1998. It was declared therein that an application for restoration of his appeal is pending before the Tribunal at Chennai. No action was taken. Subsequently, the CEGAT, Chennai, in MC No. 239/99 restored the appeal to its original file. The respondent in terms of Annexure-D, letter dated 11-1-1999 wanted the petitioner to produce documentary evidence with regard to restoration of appeal by the CEGAT. Petitioner produced Annexure-F enclosing court orders. After receiving the said order the respondent rejected the declaration in terms of an Annexure-C endorsement dated 1-7-1999. Petitioner is before me challenging this endorsement. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the material facts to contend that Annexure-C has to be set aside on the facts, of this case. A...
K.D. Nanaiah and anr. Vs. Kokkanda B. Poonacha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ459
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This civil revision petition by defendants 5 and 6 in O.S. No. 75 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Virajpet, is directed against an order passed by the Trial Court dated 6-4-2002 on I.A. No. XX, an application filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. 2. The suit is for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 are stated to be the members of the joint family. Defendants 5 to 7 are purchasers of some of the properties from some of the members of the family. 3. Plaintiffs had filed an application I.A. No. XX under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for certain amendments to the plaint. The amendment sought for was for quite a few additional reliefs, one for modification of certain suit items and also for indicating the boundaries in respect of some of the properties, that certain transactions between defendants 2 and 7 are not bona fide and not...
Dalappa Vs. Bangalore University and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ236
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. An interesting question is raised in this petition. The petitioner-Dalappa is aggrieved by a notification dated 5-11-2001 issued by the Bangalore University (for short, 'the University'). He was to retire in terms of the notification on 30-9-2002 on reaching the age of superannuation. The petition averments would show that the petitioner obtained B.E. degree in Mechanical Engineering in July 1968. He joined the services as Laboratory Assistant in the year 1972. He obtained M.E. degree in 1990. He was promoted as Superintendent in terms of an order dated 31-1-1995, Annexure-A. Workshop Superintendent is a teacher and having regard to the fact that retirement age for teaching staff is 60 years, he would reach the age of superannuation on 30-9-2004. According to him, Annexure-B is a case of non application of mind. He has produced SSLC certificate at Annexure-C.2. The petitioner refers to the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act to contend that the pe...
Somanna and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary-ii, Departme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2886
ORDERVishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Though these petitions are posted in orders list, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed of, by this order.2. The petitioners in these petitions are all employees of 2nd respondent-University. In these petitions, they have prayed for quashing of order dated 31st January, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F, passed by the 1st respondent and also they have prayed for quashing of show cause notices, a copy of which has been produced as Annexures-G, H, J and K issued to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent pursuant to order Annexure-F passed by the State Government.3. The few facts which are not in dispute in this petition may be stated as hereunder:The 2nd respondent-University regularised the services of the petitioners by means of order dated 24th May, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B, subject to the approval of the State Governmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »