Karnataka Court September 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
D. Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ83
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who had been granted an extent of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 14 (New No. 74) of Hoskote Village, Kolala Hobli, Koratagere Taluk in Tumkur District and whose efforts to get back the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act'), claiming benefits under this Act for persons like him, as he had parted the land in favour of the father of the third respondent in the year 1963 through a sale deed, is yet to fructify.2. Petitioner though promptly invoked the provisions of the Act immediately on this Act coming into force and had filed an application under Section 5 of the Act in the year 1979 itself, unfortunately, the proceedings refused to come to a close and the petitioner continues to run from pillar to post to get the benefits that he became entitled to under the Act and in terms of the order dated 6-2-1981 passed by the ...
Ramappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ189
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The writ petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd June, 2005 passed in W.P. No. 43345 of 2002 have preferred this writ appeal. In the writ petition, the land acquisition proceedings were assailed. The two grounds urged before the learned Single Judge while assailing the validity of the land acquisition proceedings were the following.--(i) the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is not a 'public purpose'; and(ii) that there was no warrant or urgency to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act').The learned Single Judge having not found merit in either of the two contentions has dismissed the writ petition by the order under appeal.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants would reiterate the above two contentions which were urged before the Single Judge, before us also. A Division Bench of this Court in ...
Smt. Gangamma and anr. Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4852; 2005(6)KarLJ97
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. Siddaveerappa, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner had filed an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy right in respect of the lands bearing Sy.No. 150 measuring 9 acres and Sy.No. 151 measuring 14 acres 20 guntas of Tavarakere, Magadi Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 11.4.1981 granted occupancy right in respect of the said lands in favour of the said Siddaveerappa. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal issued Form No. 10 in favour of Siddaveerappa on 18.4.1981. The revenue records have also been transferred to the name of Siddaveerappa.2. A survey of the lands in question was conducted by the competent authority and a report was submitted by the said authority which states that the Siddaveerappa was in possession and cultivation of the lands bearing Sy. No. 153/1 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas and Sy. No. 151 measuring 2 acres 34 guntas during the relevant point of time. The survey report is a...
Moulasab Bandgisab Goundi Vs. Yamanappa Ameenappa Hikodi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant412; ILR2005KAR5230; 2006(5)KarLJ295
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the II Addi. District Judge, Bijapur in R.A. No. 7/88 wherein the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Bijapur in O.S. No. 169/83.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit to declare that the defendant No. 5 has not acquired any right, title or interest in the alleged sale deed dated 10-5-1982 executed by defendants 1 to 4 and also to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 5 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiff and to order for delivery of possession if the Court finds that the plaintiff is not in possession or lost the possession of the suit land. The plaintiff said to have purchased the suit schedule property from defendants 1 to 4 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 10,000/- under a sale deed dated ...
Rama Nagappa Mahar @ Kamble Vs. Nagappa Mallappa Mahar @ Kamble and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Kant31; ILR2005KAR5386
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the first defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in R.A. No. 21/99 dated 17.6.2003, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Belgaum, in O.S. No. 76/1987 dated 6.4.1999, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part for partition and separate possession of their half share in the Schedule I-A and Schedule-11 properties.2. 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 :The plaintiffs filed a suit O.S. No. 76/87 seeking for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. Schedule I consists of two portions, Schedule I-A comprises of 4 items of agricultural lands and Schedule 1-B comprises of tenanted lands and Schedule II consists of three household properties and two open sites as...
S.B. Ganesh Vs. the Tree Officer Conservator of Forests
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR6018; 2006(1)KarLJ548
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of lands measuring 60.63 Acres in S. No. 168, 0.49 Acres of land in S. No. 169, 0.79 Acres in S. No. 170, 0.49 Acres in S. No. 172, 5.85 Acres in S. No. 219/2, 1.12 Acres in S. No. 219/1, 2.18 Acres in S. No. 165/1 of Kulla No. 38 totally comprising an area of 11.55 Acres situate at Uluguly village of Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District. The petitioner was growing coffee in he said land. The yield of coffee being very poor, the petitioner sought permission under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, for conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose, Accordingly he has obtained permission for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. Subsequently he filed an application to clear the entire trees standing on the above said lands before the first respondent Tree Officer under the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 to enable him to form a lay-out after removing th...
Special Land Acquisition Officer, M and Mip and anr. Vs. Manikrao (Dec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ671
N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20-1-2003 in LAC No. 1122 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga on the ground that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is excessive.2. The land bearing Sy. No. 53/1-2 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas situated at Kalmood Village, Gulbarga Taluk and District, has been notified and acquired for the purpose of construction of Lake at Kalmood Village vide preliminary notification dated 31-10-1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer by taking into consideration all the relevant factors and other material available on the file, has passed the award on 12-11-1998 fixing the market value of the land in question at Rs. 9,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said award, the claimants-respondents herein filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation and requested t...
G.N. Raju Vs. B.S. Jaiprakash and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: II(2007)BC409; 2006CriLJ820; 2006(3)KLT442
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal is filed challenging the acquittal of the accused in proceedings filed for prosecuting the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. According to the complainant-appellant when the accused persons approached the complainant for advancement of loan, a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- was advanced and in repayment of the said amount a cheque dated 5-12-1997 for Rs. 5,50,000/- was drawn on Syndicate Bank, Seshadripuram Branch in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the whole debt. As the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds as per the bank endorsement after issuing mandatory notice dated 25-3-1998 the complainant launched the prosecution when the accused failed to pay the amount under the cheque.3. The respondent/accused appeared and contested the matter. The defence of the accused was there was a sale transaction pertaining to the landed property between the complainant and one Krishnamurthy ...
The Karnataka State Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4956; 2005(6)KarLJ296
Gopala Gowda, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Small Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., which was the Plaintiff in the trial Court against the judgment and decree dismissing its suit filed for recovery of Rs. 2,22,552-92/- together with interest at 18.35% from the defendants.2. The plaintiff intended with 3rd defendant Steel Authority of India for supply of 55.50 metric tonnes of Gold Rolled plates through transportation of Defendants 1 and 2 railways from Bokaro to Bangalore City. The goods had been loaded to Wagon No. CR 008 6454 under receipt No. 377065 on 16-3-1979. The value of the goods loaded was Rs. 1,27,297-32 and freight charges was Rs. 14,814/- totalling to Rs. 1,42,111-32. But, the goods were not delivered at the destination. Therefore, plaintiff made claim under Section 78 of Indian Railways Act. Since the claim was not settled, suit was filed in the Civil Court but the same was transferred to the Railways Claims Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has er...
Balaji Computers and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by It ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR38; [2006]147STC269(Kar)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellants in this appeal were the petitioners in writ petitions No. 5158-61 of 2005. The substantial grievance of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessees') in the writ petitions was that since the parts of Computer and Computer peripherals were exempted from levy of Turnover Tax/Resale Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the TOT/RST) under Section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by means of Notification No. FD 48 CSL 2000 (2) dated 18'' July 2000; No. FD 97 CSL 2001 (7) No. 660 dated 31st March 2001 and No. FD 54 CSL 2002 (4) dated 30'' March 2002, the copies of which have been produced as Annexure-E, F and G respectively to this appeal, the proposition notices issued by the Assessing Authorities pursuant to the Circular dated 31st December 2004 in No. CLR CR. 157/04-05, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D to the writ petitions, were without jurisdiction and were liable to be qua...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »