Karnataka Court May 2005 Judgments
Smt. Seethamma Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1372
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. Petitioner claims to be the owner of several items of lasituated at Adyar Village, Mangalore Taluk, South Kanara District and the said lands were admittedly tenanted and vested as on the appointed date namely., 01.03.1974. The tenants in respect of those lands had filed Form No. 7 seeking grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Mangalore and that tenancy right was granted to the said tenants. The Case Numbers and the names of the tenants in respect of those lands are as follows:i) L.R.T.No. 5661/77-78-Devanana Shettyii) L.R.T.No. 775/75-76-Bada Poojary S/o Manjappa Poojaryiii) L.R.T. No. 549/75-76-Monta Poojary S/o Poova Poojary iv) L.R.T. No. 555/323/75-Smt Baggi W/o Nemu Poonja.2. It is contended by the Petitioner that she was not paid compensation in respect of those lands. It is further contended that when the said lands were leased to the tenants it consisted of structures. The Petitioner filed a representation to the 2nd respondent for dete...
Tag this Judgment!Wipro Technologies Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: (2008)11VST631(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by a dealer directed against an interim order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in second appeal preferred under Section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act')2. The appellant who was disputing the total tax liability of Rs. 2.38 crores in the appeals had filed an application for stay under Section 22(5) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1.41 crores and odd and the balance amount out of the subject-matter still payable by the petitioner was Rs. 1,19,46,499. The said amount was the subject-matter of three appeals before the Tribunal for the years 2001-02, 2002-03 under the KST Act and for the year 2002-03 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.3. For maintaining an appeal and to enable the Tribunal to consider such an appeal, the prerequisite under the statute is that one half of the disputed tax should be deposited. It is in respect of the other half that the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Mahaboob Since Deceased by L. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC394
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 2283 of 1992 sustained fracture of fibula in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioner died during the pendency of the petition and for the reason other than the injuries sustained in the accident. The wife and children of the petitioner have come on record. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,71,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of petition till payment.2. The Tribunal has granted compensation towards loss of income on account of disability. The entire approach of the Tribunal in assessing the compensation is totally erroneous. The Full Bench of this Court in Kannamma v. Deputy General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corporation 1991 ACJ 707 (Karnataka), has held that in case of death of a petitioner who has sustained personal injuries for the reasons other than the injuries sustained in the accident, the legal representatives are entitled only to the compensation for the loss to estate. The medical expenses and...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Shetty and Co. Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4362
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner is a Construction Contractor. The second respondent herein, namely, the Executive Engineer, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited, Bijapur, had entrusted the civil works contract of construction of Indi Branch Canal, including structures of Chainage 89-90 KM of Upper Krishna Project on tender basis. The necessary agreement in this regard was executed by the second respondent.2. It appears that, during the earth excavation in relation to the above contract work, the petitioner had found sub soil water and therefore, he could not make any progress in the work that was entrusted to him. It is also stated that, the petitioner had requested the Executive Engineer and other superior authorities for payment of additional charges/expenses for de-watering of the sub soil water. It is further asserted that, the authorities after a detailed inspection of the construction spot, had favourably considered the request made by the petitioner, and had paid the de-watering c...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Gokula Education Foundation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ429
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. Since all these writ appeals are directed against the same common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15th April, 2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 3832 to 3849 of 2004, all these writ appeals were clubbed, heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ Appeal Nos. 3777 to 3794 of 2004 are preferred by the State of Karnataka, Writ Appeal Nos. 2627, 2740 to 2755 and 3618 of 2004 are preferred by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), whereas Writ Appeal Nos. 2792, 2793 and 3135 to 3150 of 2004 are preferred by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).3. M/s. Gokula Education Foundation, Bangalore (for short, 'GEF), which is one of the respondents in all these appeals, filed Writ Petition Nos. 3832 to 3849 of 2004 in this Court for quashing of the allotment order dated 13-3-2003 in No. BDA/DS-1/CA/Sy. No. 20/RMV/II/II]72003-04 and consequential possession certificate bearing No. BDA/DS-1/Sy. No. 20/RMV/IMIJ/2003-0...
Tag this Judgment!B. Baskar Hegde Vs. Kallappa Lingappa Shiggaon (Deceased) by His L.Rs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ523
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the proceedings for implementation of an eviction order dated 3-1-1989 in HRC No. 160 of 1984 passed by the Court of the Prl. Munsiff at Hubli.2. The eviction order passed under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, '1961 Act') was in terms of the provisions of Section 21(1)(c), (d) and (o) of 1961 Act. That order had been challenged by the tenant and came to be affirmed in Rent Revision Petition No. 28 of 1989 on the file of the District Judge at Dharwad in terms of the order dated 21-12-1996 and a further revision by the aggrieved tenant to this Court in H.R.R.P. No. 177 of 1997 also came to be dismissed in terms of the order dated 13-6-2001. However, during the course of the proceedings before this Court in H.R.R.P. No. 177 of 1997, submission of the learned Counsel for the landlord was that the examination of the eviction order can be confine...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. P.K. Timber Company and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ559
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal by the defendant, the State of Karnataka, challenges the judgment and decree of the Trial Court on several grounds. However, at the time of hearing the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, rested on two grounds only. Namely, that the suit was barred by limitation and that the relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiff could not have been granted by the Trial Court.2. To appreciate the contentions on behalf of the appellant, it would be in order to narrate the facts of the case.3. The suit was brought by the holder of an agreement of sale, in possession, of the lands described in the schedule to the suit, measuring about 265.74 acres situate in Karike Village, Kodagu District.4. The defendants were the State of Karnataka arrayed as defendant 1 and the owners of the land arrayed as defendants 2 to 8. Since there was no Us in fact between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 8, they were transposed as plaintiffs 2 to 8 by the Trial Court....
Tag this Judgment!The Special Lao, Upper Krishna Project Vs. Laxmibai Ramappa Rangannava ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2850; 2006(3)KarLJ344
N.K. Patil, J.1. The appellant-State, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Bagalkot and the claimant-respondent-Cross Objector being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13th October 2003 in LAC. No. 102/2000 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot, the appellant on the ground that, the enhancement made by the Reference Court is excessive and riot sustainable; and the Cross Objector on the ground that, the enhancement of compensation made by Reference Court is inadequate, have presented the instant appeal and Cross Objection respectively before this Court.2. The lands bearing R.S. Nos. 113/1 and 113/1B measuring 04 acres situate at Talagihal village in Bagalkot District along with several other lands were notified and acquired by the State Government vide preliminary Notification dated 27th June 1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('Act' for short) for submergence of backwater Almatti reservoir...
Tag this Judgment!Saftarsab Vs. B. Allaiah @ Allappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC281; ILR2005KAR2911; 2006(3)KarLJ141
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by both the Courts below in the suit filed by the appellant in OS 220/1998 and in RA 47/1999 by orders dated 30.7.1999 and 7.9.2000 respectively.2. The appellant had filed a money suit for recovery against the respondent before the Trail Court based on the pro-note. According to the appellant/plaintiff, defendant/respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 28.6.1996 and Rs. 20,000/- on 10.10.1996 from the plaintiff by executing on demand promissory notes. He had agreed to pay interest at rate of 24% p.a. The defendant had paid only Rs. 5,000/- on 28.7.1998 and failed to pay the remaining amount. A suit was filed for recovery of the money and the same was contested by the defendant by denying the same. The Trial Court has raised as many as six issues casting the burden on the plaintiff to prove that whether the defendant had borrowed the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- on ...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Ramesh and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Chief Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant364; ILR2005KAR2526; 2005(6)KarLJ233
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. Whether Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 (for short 'the Act') which provides for one year tenure of a Mayor from the date of his election contravenes any provision of part IX-A of the Constitution and is constitutionally invalid is the short question which arises for consideration in this bunch of three cases two of which are writ appeals (writ appeal No. 3005-06 and 3416 of 2004) and the third is a writ petition (writ petition No. 43155 of 2004). Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in writ appeal No. 3416 of 2004 will govern the other cases as well since common questions of law and fact arise in all the cases. The main arguments were addressed in writ appeal No. 3416 of 2004 and therefore the facts are being taken from this case.2. Elections to the Bangalore City Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') were held on 28.11.2001 and the appellant was elected as a Councillor. The term of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »