Karnataka Court August 2005 Judgments

D. Rangappa Vs. G. Mudlappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2006)BC238; ILR2005KAR4759

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the Plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Madhugiri in R.A. No. 51/2002, dated 11.04.2003, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Madhugiri, in O.S. No. 10/1998 dated 31.10.2002 and consequently, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:2. The plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 10/1998, seeking for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants to him and for award of costs averring that the first defendant was the owner of the suit schedule property and he mortgaged the same in favour of the State Bank of Mysore, Madhugiri, for raising loan. The suit, O.S. No. 9/78, was filed by the said Bank for recovery of the loan amount. The said suit was decreed for reco...

Shakuntala Bai and anr. Vs. Sailatha Anand

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4550; 2005(6)KarLJ367

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. In the present appeal the respondent has been served and has remained un-represented. Heard the Counsel for the appellant.2. The facts of the case are:-The appellants had filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act' for short) for grant of succession certificate in respect of the benefits arising under life insurance policies which had been taken out by the son of the appellants, upon his death in a motor accident. This was warranted on account of the respondent having resisted their claim for the benefits of the appellants on the footing that she was nominated under the said policies and therefore she was entitled to the same. The petition was contested by the respondent though she did not lead any evidence in support of her case. The Trial Court has rejected the petition on the sole ground that since the respondent is shown as a nominee under the respective insurance policies, the appellants did not have a cause of action. The...

Thimmaiah Vs. M. Muniswamy and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5196; 2006(6)KarLJ515

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner on I.A.I/04 and the Learned advocate for respondents. There is a delay of 638 days in filing this review petition. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the application.2. According to the petitioner/applicant, she acquired knowledge of the order dated 18.11.02 passed by this Court at the end of July, 2004. Therefore, she has come up with this review petition. According to her, she was not served with notice of the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent. Inspite of direction given by this Court dated 20.2.2001 to pay process fee, the 1st respondent has not paid the same. Therefore, this Court had passed an order dated 20.3.2001 holding that respondents-4 and 5 were deemed to have been served and hence, service of notice to Respondents-4 and 5 was treated as sufficient. Apart from this, she states that she is a proper and necessary party to the writ petition. Since, she was not served with the notice, she had no o...

Bangarappa and ors. Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ467

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ petition is by persons who claim that they are in possession of an extent of 2 acres of land in Survey No. 104 of Anantapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner which order came to be affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act').2. What is principally urged is that the provisions of the Act were not attracted at all to the situation in which the petitioners were placed; that the petitioners are claiming possession of the land from the year 1971; that there was no interference or disruption of possession and enjoyment of the land; that in respect of subject-matter land, the respondent 3 had instituted a suit in O.S. No. 88 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rur...

Jayaraj Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4159; 2005(6)KarLJ30

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. A notification was issued inviting tenders for supply of food materials like bread, milk, etc., to the different hospitals of Chitradurga District. Annexure-A is the notification dated 17.2.2005 permitting the applicants to obtain the documents on or before 11.3.2005 and submit the same on or before 15th March 2005 before 11.p.m. The present petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that the notification is contrary to Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000. According to the petitioner, if the value of tender is upto rupees two crores, the authorities have to give a minimum period of 30 days to receive the tender documents from the date of publication. Therefore, relying upon Rule-17, petitioner has approached this Court to quash the notification dated 17.2.2005 contending that the last date fixed by the 4th respondent to receive the tender document as 15.3.2005 will fall sh...

Prafulladevi (Dead) by L.R. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ524

N.K. Patil, J.1. The claimant-appellant, being aggrieved by the enhancement of market value and awarding of interest in judgment and award dated 25th August, 2003 in LAC No. 891 of 1983 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikodi in respect of the lands in question, has presented the instant appeal.2. Land bearing Survey No. 333 measuring 8 acres 34 guntas situate at Kabbur Village, Chikodi Taluk has been notified and acquired by Government vide its preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 5th March, 1981 for the purpose of 'construction of the canal of Hidkal Dam Project'. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking all relevant factors into consideration and other materials available on file, has fixed the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 30,277.17 ps. per acre. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant-appellant herein filed the application for reference u...

Millenia Realtors Private Limited Vs. Sjr Infrastructure (Private) Lim ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ36

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The facts of the case are, the appellant is said to be a reputed developer and builder. It is claimed that the appellant along with its group companies have specialized in the development of major Information Technology Parks. The respondent, a private limited company, has obtained on lease plots bearing Nos. 13, 14 and 15, EPIP, I Phase, Whitefield, Bangalore measuring about 33,149 sq. m. (about 8 acres 19 guntas). The land was allotted to the respondent on 10-6-2002 by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board ('KIADB', for short). Physical possession has been delivered on 30-5-2003 and a lease agreement has been executed in favour of the respondent by the KIADB as on 17-11-2003.2. The respondent had made a proposal to the appellant as on 6-8-2003 to sub-lease the above land by the execution of an agreement of lease, within 15 days from KIADB executing the lease-cum-sale agreement in its favour. This proposal was accepted by the appellant.3. It is the case...

V. Gunda Reddy Vs. the Secretary Department of Revenue and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5692

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 33566/2004 is the owner of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 43/2 measuring 0-24 guntas, 44/1B measuring 1-00 acre and 46/2 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas. The petitioner in W P. No. 33567/2004 is the owner of Sy. Nos. 7/3 measuring 2 acres 01 guntas and 30/2 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas. All the lands are situated at Koodlu village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. They have filed these petitions seeking to quash the Notification at Annexure-H dated 22-8-2003 issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for having allegedly taken over possession of the said lands pursuant to the acquisition made for the benefit of Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Society), which is the fourth respondent in these petitions.2. The necessary brief facts leading to these writ petitions are stated as follows:The preliminary Notification was iss...

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2008)11VST528(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The first petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Mumbai, but more importantly having its production units mainly cement producing plants in different locations in the State of Karnataka, amongst them two plants at Wadi in Gulbarga district of this State.The petitioner is also a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') as also the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The writ petition is for seeking the relief in the context of certain concession or benefits extended in respect of the sales tax turnover of the petitioner's expanded unit at their plants in Wadi, Gulbarga district, in terms of the Government Notification No. FD 187 CSL 2000(I), (II) and III dated June 5, 2000, a copy of which is produced at annexure K to the writ petition, and on the promise that the real benefit under this notification is to some ext...

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented by their Administra ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The deceased in MVC No. 226/96 is one Hamamanthappa is a loader in the lorry died while travelling in the lorry which root with the accident. Wife and son are the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 128200/- with interest at 6(sic) from the date of the petition till payment by adopting the general principles of tort for assessing the compensation. The Tribunal directed the Insurer to pay the condensation. The insurer has disputed the status of the deceased as a loader in the lorry. During the pendency of the appeal both the petitioners died. Owner died during the pendency of the petition before the tribunal. Wife of the deceased died during the pendency of this appeal. The nearest relative of the first petitioner has com(c) on record as legal representatives to continue in appeal.2. Counsel for the insurer strenuously argued that on the death of the wife-a sole dependent, the petition abates. The legal representatives are n...