Karnataka Court June 2004 Judgments
Narayansa Vs. Meerabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3312; 2004(6)KarLJ99
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No. 269/ 2002 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Gadag, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 6-3-2004 in R.A.No. 141/2003 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29-10-2003 passed by the Trial Court in the suit.2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein were the plaintiffs and the Appellant was the first defendant in the Trial Court. The other respondents were the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as in the original suit.3. The Plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction of the defendants and for possession of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the property in question was taken by one Hanamantasa Yellosa Sidling on yearly rent for business purpose after his death the defendants continued the business in the schedule premises. It is stated that since eviction proceedings initiated for their eviction culminated in abatement of proceedings ...
Tag this Judgment!Muniyamma and ors. Vs. Kumbaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4769; 2004(6)KarLJ106
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the judgment dated 21st February, 2003 in M.A. (VOA) No. 26 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tumkur, have presented the instant writ petition.2. The first respondent herein had assailed the correctness of the order dated 16th August, 1971 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur in proceedings No. .... ordering to re-grant 1/3rd share to the first respondent herein and the petitioners herein in respect of land bearing Sy. Nos. 23 and 57 totally measuring 08 guntas and 22 guntas situated at Hadonahalli, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District on the ground that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner re-granting the land under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 in favour of the petitioners to an extent of 1/3rd share, is contrary to the material on record and the same is done without conducting the enquiry and without deciding as to whether the petitioners are enti...
Tag this Judgment!The Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3223; [2005]139STC413(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this Revision Petition filed under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the Order dated 6th February 1998 made in STA No. 587 of 1995 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').2. Facts in brief:The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessee') is a Public Limited Company carrying on business in manufacture of Sugar and connected products. The Assessing Officer, negativing the objections raised by the assesses to the proposition Notice issued by him, made an Order of Assessment dated 26th February 1993 for the assessment year 1990-91, confirming the total taxable turnover as proposed in the proposition Notice. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the assessee filed Appeal No. 349 of 1992-93 before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum (hereinafter referred...
Tag this Judgment!Subbayyajoga Naik Vs. Narayanai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant430; 2004(6)KarLJ242
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the 6th Defendant in O. S. No. 45/98 on the file of civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Bhatkal, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 15-9-2003 in R. A. No. 428/2001 reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 25-9-2001 passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit.2. The first respondent herein was the plaintiff in the suit. The appellant was the 6th defendant and other respondents herein were the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as in the original suit.3. The Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the entries in the R. T. C. in respect of 'A' Schedule properties showing the names of the plaintiff and defendants on the basis of alleged partition, are wrong, illegal and they are liable to be deleted and that the names of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 have to be substituted as legal representatives of deceased Joga Hanuma Naik, who died intestate. A further relief for partition by m...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. G.M. Sumanabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4112; ILR2004KAR4049
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. Crl.A. No. 674/1997 is by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed on accused 1 to 3. Whereas, Crl.R.P. No. 1231/2003 is by accused 1 and 2 assailing the Judgment passed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Crl.A. No. 47/1997, dated 31.10.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No. 476/1993 by the learned J.M.F.C., Shikaripura, dated 19.04.1997.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:The police, Shikaripura, charge-sheeted accused 1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 466, 468 and 201 I.P.C., alleging that accused 1- Sumana Bai is the daughter of accused 2-G.S. Mangalore, who are 'Havyak Brahmins' by community, with the assistance of accused 3-Chandrashekar obtained false transfer certificate-Ex.P12 from the school and that accused 2-G.S. Mangalore sworn to a false affidavit and produced to the Tahsildar Shikaripur, and obtained a false caste certificate in favour of accused 1 describing accused ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Bennari Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to Revenue Departme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4353
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In W.P. No. 24204/2000 an application is filed by the impleading applicants who are the purchasers of the land in question. As they are the persons who are likely to be affected by any orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petition and in fact their sale deed is sought to be quashed, I.A.I/04 is allowed. Petitioner to amend the cause title.2. The brief facts giving raise to the Writ Petitions are as hereunder :-3. The subject matter of dispute is land bearing Sy. No. 108/3 situated at Mysore Village, Mysore Taluk, measuring 3 acres 10 guntas. In respect of this land two applications were filed in Form No. VII for grant of occupancy rights under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter for short, called as 'the Act'). One application was filed by one Perumal and the said case was numbered as LRF No. 2977/74-75. Yet another application is filed by K.M. Jayaram Mudaliar. Both the applications were clubbed. Perumal did not press his application and, ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mary Fathima Alias S. Karuna Vs. Anna Mary Vijaya and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant132; 2004(6)KarLJ153
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a petition presented under Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act' for short) by one of the beneficiaries under a Will dated 4-10-1965 left behind by one Sri Singaroyan s/o. late J. Savarinayagam Pillai, praying for issue of directions to the administrators of this Will namely Dr. Miss. Josephine Dominick, M.B.B.S., D.G.O., r/at No. 15, Hospital Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, d/o. late Dr. S. Bagianathan, the brother of the testator and Sri K. Arokiaswamy s/o. late Sri Kankickani, r/at No. 75-G, Main Street, Jougpalyam, Ulsoor, Civil Station, Bangalore-8, the husband of step sister of the testator to ensure compliance with the intentions of the testator as per the Will for distribution of the properties under the Will executed by the testator and in terms of the order of probate dated 28-3-1978 granted in Probate and Succession Case No. 7 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore.2. The case of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Madhuri Vs. Venkavva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3134; 2004(6)KarLJ322
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioner herein claiming to be the tenant under the respondent filed HRC. No. 144/99 before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Belgaum under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'old Act') praying for permission to deposit the rent of the petition premises. The respondent herein filed objections inter alia contending that there is no relationship between the petitioner and respondent as tenant and landlord; that the Trustees of the Public Trust have no power to create lease without the previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner and consequently prayed for dismissal of HRC petition. The learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) after perusal of the material on record, including the oral and documentary evidence lead on behalf of the petitioner, rejected the petition by holding that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner herein and consequently the petitioner cannot be all...
Tag this Judgment!T. Srinivasan Vs. the State, by Cbi/Spe
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3115; 2004(5)KarLJ294
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner, who is accused in special case No. 7/1989 on the file of the Court of XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I cases, Bangalore City, has requested to quash the proceedings in said case. After notice, the respondent appeared through its learned Standing Counsel. So, heard both sides and perused the records.2. The only ground urged for the petitioner-accused to quash the proceedings is that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner -accused is not valid since, according to him, the authority, which has given sanction for his prosecution, is not the competent authority, as could be seen from the statement of PW-1-Dr. Sheela, who has given sanction. However, it was submitted for the respondent that the sanction given does not suffer from any infirmity and the statement of PW-1 does not help the petitioner-accused in any way to hold that the sanction is invalid.3. The facts,...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rathnakala Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant24; ILR2004KAR4551
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondent,2. By consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this order.3. The petitioner filed an application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit on the route Jellipallya to Kollegala, Kollegala to Gondapura and Kollegala to Cowdalli. The said application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority and by an order dated 25-11-1996 granted the Stage Carriage Permit. Timings were assigned by the respondent-Secretary on 17-4-1997. As the petitioner did not possess the vehicle on the day permit was granted and within 30 days from the date of permit also she did not possess the vehicle, she made an application to the authority for extension of time. On her request, the time was extended upto 31-10-1997 for production of the documents showing that she is a registered owner of the vehicle. The petitioner could not acquire the vehicle within that time. Therefore, she f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »