Karnataka Court June 2004 Judgments
Doomannashetty Vs. Baccha Alias Gopala Shetty (Dead) by L.Rs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)KarLJ245
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 161 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kundapura against the judgment and decree dated 22-6-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kundapura, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 9-12-1986.2. The deceased-respondent was the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as in the suit.3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for redemption and re-conveyance of the mortgaged properties. The properties had been mortgaged under a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 2-8-1969. The plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from the mortgagor, Appanna under a sale deed dated 18-1-1975. The defendant resisted the suit denying the plaint averments. It is stated that there is no cause of auction for the suit and that plaintiff has no right to seek redemption of the properties. It is claimed that the properties are in possession of d...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshappa Since Dead by His Lrs. and ors. Vs. Krishnamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant160; ILR2005KAR358; 2005(2)KarLJ262
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellants are the L.Rs of the deceased plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration that the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants No. 2 to 4 is void and in contravention Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further pray for determination of the value of the suit properties and thereafter to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property by receiving the sale value determined by the Court.2. One Venkataramanappa is the propositus, died several years prior to 1962. One Ganeshappa and the plaintiff and one Chinnappa (husband of the first defendant) are the only heirs of Venkataramanappa. The husband of the first defendant Chinnappa died in the year 1966. The first defendant filed a suit in O.S.No. 317/1966 against the plaintiff herein seeking partition of the share of her husband. The suit was decreed. The first defendant sold the properties allotted to her share to the defendants No. 2 to 4.3...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka, by Its Commissioner for Commercial Taxes and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR290
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. These petitions are against the order passed on 3.8.2000 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 130 and 131/1998.2. Briefly stated the facts are;-The respondent -assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and also the Central Sales Tax Act. It is a dealer in computers and computer peripherals. It's sales are second or the subsequent sales. For the assessment year 1994-95, the Assessing Authority had completed the assessment proceedings and had not levied the turnover tax under Section 6-B of the Act.For the assessment year 1995-96, on the declared turnover of the dealer in computers and computer peripherals, the Assessing Authority had levied the turnover tax at the rate of 1%.By initiating re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1994-95, the Assessing Authority had revised his earlier order of assessment and had levied the turnover tax at the rate of 1%. While framing the re-assessment order, the Assessin...
Tag this Judgment!Premanand Shetty K. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ417
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. This petition is filed seeking for a direction in the nature of quo warranto ousting the second respondent from the post of Drug Controller after quashing the notification Annexure-A, dated 12-6-2004.2. Petitioner states that the second respondent has been appointed in terms of Annexure-A notification dated 12-6-2003. According to petition averments, the second respondent is ineligible to be appointed as a Drug Controller as he does not have the minimum qualification to hold the post of Drug Controller as specified under Rule 50-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.3. Notice was issued and respondents have entered appearance. Respondent states that in the light of the proceedings initiated by Lokayuktha, the Drugs Control Department has to necessarily appoint respondent 2 in the larger public interest. According to objection statement, there was no suitable person to be promoted to the post of Drug Controller from the cadre of Additional Drugs Controller in ...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Mallikarjuna Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR909; 2004(5)KarLJ128
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is an elected member of the third respondent-Grama Panchayat. He was also elected as Adhyaksha of Grama Panchayat on 17-12-2002. The requisite number of members of the Grama Panchayat have moved a No-confidence against the petitioner. The second respondent-Assistant Commissioner issued a notice dated 5-5-2004 as per Annexure-A, informing the petitioner that the meeting of Panchayat will be convened on 22-5-2004 at 11.00 a.m. at the Grama Panchayat Office to consider the said No-confidence motion. On 22-5-2004 at 11.00 a.m., it was noticed that two locks were put to the door of Panchayat and about 400 men and women had assembled in front of Grama Panchayat Office protesting against the No-confidence motion. One person by name Elias consumed poison. In spite of the efforts made by the Assistant Commissioner for a period of one hour, he could not conduct the meeting and therefore he postponed the meeting. On 24-5-2004 as per Annexure-B issued an endorsem...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Shivaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC408; ILR2004KAR4311; 2004(6)KarLJ248
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This appeal is by the State assailing the Judgment of acquittal of the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 57/1990 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bidar, dated 30.03.1998.2 The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:The marriage of deceased-Shakti Devi took place somewhere in the year 1978. Out of their wedlock two daughters and a son were born. The deceased was a B.A., B.Ed., double graduate with typewriting qualification and for sometime she was working as High School Teacher in Kalur Lingeshwar School and left the job. Whereas, the accused was running a radio repair shop at the time of the incident at Humnabad. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused-Shivaraj was addicted to alcohol and that he used to come home fully drunk, assaulting his wife and also subjecting her to cruelty. That on 13.03.1988 at about 7.00 p.m. the accused having fully drunk started quarreling. Shakti Devi having ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Baby Ammal W/O Sri Jayaram Vs. P. Sumithra Devi and D/O S. Ponnuswa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: ILR2006KAR2552; 2006(6)KarLJ220
K. Ramanna, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 5.7.1996 passed by the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs. 68,340/- with interest and costs. Further, the appellant/defendant was directed to pay current and future interest at 24% p.a. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant has come up with this appeal mainly on the ground that the Court below has come to a wrong conclusion in passing the impugned judgment and decree and has not framed the issue regarding running of chit fund by P.W.2 who is the father of the respondent. Even though the appellant/defendant has taken a valid and tenable contention that the two endorsements in Ex.P.1 made on various dates with regard to the payment of the balance of sale consideration amount which was received but her signature was taken on a pretext that some time may be extended to execute the sale deed. Hence, this appeal.2. The case of the responde...
Tag this Judgment!G. Shoukath and ors. Vs. V. Chandraprakash
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3288; 2004(5)KarLJ44
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. A Single Bench of this Court has expressed doubts about the correctness of the view taken by another Single Bench regarding the true and correct interpretation of Section 27(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999. The present reference to the Division Bench is aimed at providing an authoritative answer to the question that falls for determination in the following circumstances.2. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 inter alia regulated eviction of tenants from the premises let out to them till the said Act was repealed by Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Section 70(2)(b) of the repealing enactment provides for disposal of all cases and proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the said Act before any Court or Authority including the High Court, in accordance with the provisions of the new enactment. In M.R. RAMACHANDRA v. SHANTAKUMARI AND ANR., : ILR2003KAR2728 the landlord was aggrieved of the dismissal of his case for eviction of the tenant on the ground of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, by Its Secretary and anr. V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4240; 2004(7)KarLJ312
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Since both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 17th December 1998 made in LAC No. 224 of 1989 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Assistant Sessions Judge, Athani, [hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court'], these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this judgment.2. The Appellant in MFA No. 1970 of 1999 is the Agriculture Produce Market Committee [hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee'] for whose purpose the land in question has been acquired by the State. The Appellant in MFA No. 3448 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claimant'] is the owner of the land in question. While it is the grievance of the Committee that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is on the higher side, the grievance of the land-owner is that it is on the lower side.3. Brief facts:The land measuring 20 acres 1 guntas in Survey No. 790A situated at Athani came to be acquired for the purpose of the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!(Ex. Naik Clerk, G.D.) Ganeshan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1045]
R. Gururajan, J.1. This petition is directed against an order at Annexure-A, dated 17-9-1998 issued by GOC-in-C Southern Command directing that the petitioner be discharged from service. The petitioner is also challenging Annexure-B an order dated 8-10-1998 issued by the Officer Commanding Training Battalion No. I of MEG. He seeks a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits in accordance with law.The petitioner was enrolled in the Madras Engineer Group of the Regular Army on 17th December, 1983 as a Sapper Clerk. After successful completion of training he was posted out from the MEG and centre and served in Engineer units. He earned his, promotion to the Non-gazetted Officer rank of Naik, and was serving with 163 Bridging Company of 16 Engineer Regiment located then at Ambala Cantonment during 1990, On 16-2-1990, the petitioner married one Sreedevi D/o. Achuthan of Neerthattil House, Vadakkekad, Thrissur District, Kerala. It was an arranged marriage. Mar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »