Karnataka Court July 2005 Judgments

N.B. Panduranga Setty and anr. Vs. Kumar Yana D.M. Manjunath and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2006)ACC721; 2006ACJ1556; ILR2006KAR694

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One Bhagyalaxmi, is the deceased in MVC No. 618/96. In the accident Bhagyalaxmi died and her uncle sustained personal injuries. The parents are the petitioners of the deceased Bhagyalaxmi. Petitioners are not examined. But the uncle of the deceased has given evidence in support of the petitioners case. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not examined.2. Neither the provisions of order 18 of CPC nor the Rules of evidence insist that a party to the proceeding should necessarily be examined. Non-examination of a party is not fatal to the case. The party without examining himself can prove his case by examining any witnesses who has personal knowledge of the facts and competent to testify. The Court upon such evidence can grant relief to the party. But, if the witness examined is not competent to depose to the facts, perhaps in such a situation, the Court will draw an adverse inference and the party runs the risk of dismissal of ...

Salarpuria Properties Private Limited Vs. M.S. Ramaiah Developers and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ23

1. The appellant is the plaintiff and this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2005 passed in O.S. No. 1020 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The Court below, by the decree under appeal, has decreed the suit in part directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,05,51,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment. However, the Court below has dismissed the suit with regard to the prayer of the plaintiff for specific performance of the suit agreement dated 9-7-2003 and for liquidated damages to the tune of Rupees forty crores for alleged wrongful breach of the terms of the agreement dated 9-7-2003. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff insofar as the Court below has rejected its prayer for the aforementioned two reliefs.2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows.The plaintiff is one among the co...

Ramesh Chandra Lahoti and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secre ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4030; 2006(6)KarLJ102

Nagamohan Das, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-11 -2004 dismissing the writ petitions in writ petition No. 18095/2004 and connected matters.2. Agriculture is a way of life, a tradition, which for centuries, has shaped the thought, the outlook, the culture and the economic life of the people of India. Indian agriculture has since Independence, made rapid strides. In taking the annual foodgrains production from 51 million tonnes of early fifties to 206 million tonnes at the turn of the century. The use of increased agricultural inputs like hybrid variety seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, agricultural machinery, fossil fuel, electrical power etc., pushed the cost of production, up during the last three decades. The increased cost of production has led to increased indebtedness among farmers and they are in the trap of debt. This phenomenon resulted in distress sale of farm product. Distress sale means, selling the pro...

B. Vijayalakshmi Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR3921

ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. This is a classic case where merit is discarded with impunity by the respondent-Colleges while selecting students for the study of MBBS course despite the Hon'ble Supreme Court declaring time and again that merit and merit alone should be the basis of selection for the candidates.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-Petitioner had appeared for Common Entrance Test conducted by the 3rd respondent (COMED.K) for admission of MBBS course for the Academic year 2004-05 and had secured rank No. 3545. Thereafter, she made applications to respondent-Colleges 4 to 9 for allotment of medical seat in those Colleges. Since none of the Colleges responded to her request, she has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a common counselling as conducted by the Entrance Test Cell established by the State Government.3. Petitioner filed an application I.A. No. 1/04 for a direction to the second respondent to call for records from respond...

Mahesh C. Gandhi Vs. the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Belgaum Di ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ362

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition raises a short but interesting question as to the liability for payment of lifetime tax by a private vehicle registered outside the State of Karnataka and which has occasion to make use of the road in the State of Karnataka.2. The petitioner is the owner of Tata Estate Diesel car bearing registration No. GA-01 C-5829, registered at Panaji, in the State of Goa, and who claims that he had paid the lifetime tax in that State for this vehicle, having been called upon to pay lifetime tax in the State of Karnataka under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), in terms of order dated 30-11-2001, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-J to the writ petition, and being aggrieved by the demand for payment of Rs. 25,070/- raised pursuant to this order, and having failed in his appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Transport in MV Appeal No. 16 of 2002, in terms of the...

Chambanna Fakeerappa Alias Channamallappa Toggi (Deceased) by L.Rs. an ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners 1 to 5 challenging the order dated 28-3-1988 passed by the Land Tribunal-respondent 2 in Case No. KLR/Hanamanal/SR-12 granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 148, Block No. 153 measuring an extent of 15 acres 27 guntas situated at Hanamanal Village, on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal is against the settled principles of law and respondents 3 and 4 who had purchased the said land from one Gangadharappa in the year 1971 is not entitled to get any occupancy rights. Therefore, the impugned order under challenge is liable to be set aside.Initially, the petitioners herein filed an appeal under Section 118 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad in L.R.A. No. 194 of 1988. During the pendency of the appeal, an amendment was brought to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in 1990 and the Land Reforms Appellate...

Saheblal Vs. the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4846; 2006(5)KarLJ498

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Mutawalli of Datari Masjid, Khandakgalli, Bijapur, by order dated 14.11.2000 of the Chief Executive Officer of the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs to manage the day to day affairs of the said institution until further orders. The said order is produced as Annexure-A. Later, the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs ('the board' for short) did not ratify the said appointment made by the aforesaid officer and by order dated 8.2.2001 appointed the Administrator, District Wakf Advisory Committee, Bijapur namely Mr. Asad Ali Ansari, Excise Superintendent as administrator and mutawalli of the aforesaid masjid. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of the board dated 8.2.2001 declining to ratify his appointment as Mutawalli, which order is produced as Annexure-C.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders produced as Annexure-A and C.3. Sri Hebballi, learned Counsel appearin...

Vibank Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Nil

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]130CompCas705(Kar); ILR2006KAR255

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner a Company, for short the Transferor company' incorporated on 20th October 1995 under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') having its registered office at No. 15-16, Vayudooth Chambers, 4th Floor, Trinity junction, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001 has presented this petition seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation Exhibit-'E'.2. The main objects of the Transferor company is to carry on business of providing long term finance to any person or persons, firm, company, corporation, society, association of persons on such terms and conditions as the company may deem fit for the purpose of construction or purchase of house/flat in India for residential purpose, amongst other objects set out in the Memorandum and Articles of association Exhibit-'B'.3. The Authorised share capital of the Transferor company is Rs. 10 crores divided into 1 crore Equity shares of Rs. 10/- each while the issued, subscribed and paid up share capital is Rs. 10 crores d...

Y.N. Krishna Murthy Vs. Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR131]; ILR2005KAR3389; 2005(5)KarLJ48

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner Krishna Murthy is knocking the doors of this Court for justice for the third time in this petition on the following facts.2. Petitioner has joined the services of the respondent Corporation. He was placed on probation. His services stood discharged in terms of the proceedings dated 31.3.1994. An unsuccessful petition was filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 9752 of 1994. Petition stood dismissed. A writ appeal was filed by the petitioner in W.A. No. 1991 of 1994. There was difference of opinion between the two learned judges of this Court. Matter was however referred to a third learned Judge. Learned third Judge agreed with the views of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, as he then was. It was in those circumstances that the said writ appeal came to be disposed of in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The said order is dated 1.10.1996 at Annexure-A.3. Petitioner, pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, was take...

P.K. Shanbhag Vs. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ84

R. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before me challenging the show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet dated 5-10-2004 and the subsequent order of suspension dated 12-11-2004.2. Petitioner was working as Director Technical. The said post was upgraded to Executive Director and the petitioner was nominated as a Director on the Board of the respondent-company. After he was nominated as the Director he was ill-treated in all possible ways by the then Managing Director. On 3-3-2004 petitioner was called by the then Managing Director and was scolded in unparliamentary words. Petitioner was asked to sign his VRS application by threat and coercion. Petitioner signed his VRS application. It was accepted. An appeal was filed by the petitioner and the Government in its order reviewed the matter and ordered that the Managing Director has no power to accept the VRS application. Petitioner was reinstated. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court. Petitioner states that he is governed by...