Karnataka Court January 2006 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.
A. Chidananda (Deceased) by L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Smt. Lalitha V. Naik an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant128; 2006(2)KarLJ67
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore in R.A. No. 42 of 1989 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Puttur in O.S. No. 36 of 1984.2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 27-2-1981 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant 3 and for partition of plaint 'B' schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, they along with defendants 1 and 2 are governed by Hindu School of Mitakshara law. The propositus one Vasudev Naik died in the year 1972 leaving behind plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff 1 is the son and plaintiff 2 is the daughter of Vasudev Naik and defendant 1 is the wife and defendant 2 is the son of Vasudev Naik and their family had certain immovable properties as described in 'B' Schedule. In the year 1962 the suit Schedule 'C' properties were al...
The Divisional Commissioner and ors. Vs. D.M. Premakumari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1096
R. Gururajan, J.1. The Divisional Commissioner and two others are before us challenging the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 5.3.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 10843 of 2000 in this appeal.2. The respondent-petitioner belongs to Telugu Shetty Community in terms of School Records. She claimed reservation under Category-B. She was selected and appointed under the said category as Primary School Teacher. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions referred the matter to the District Committee for Backward Classes and Minorities for verification and for issuance of necessary Caste Validity Certificate. On reference and on enquiry, the Committee came to a conclusion that the Community 'Telugu Shetty' for which the respondent/petitioner belongs to is classified as Group-D for the purpose of appointment as per Notification dated 13.10.1986. Since the respondent/petitioner comes under Group-D category, an order was passed declining to issue Caste Validity Certificate in the...
Hanumantappa Vs. Bhimawwa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant148; ILR2006KAR1113; 2006(2)KarLJ581
V.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Fast Track Court, Bijapur, in RA No. / dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Court Judge(Jr. Dn.) Bijapur, in O.S. No. 440/98 dated 11.8.2004 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession of suit schedule property from the defendant.2. I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the gift deed under which the possession is claimed by the plaintiff has not been proved in accordance with law. The Learned Counsel submitted that under Section 68 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act') where the document is required to be compulsorily attested same can be proved by examining one of the attesting witnesses and since the execution of the gift deed is denied, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to examine one of the attesting witnesses to the gi...
Dundappa Sadashivappa Patil Vs. Assistant Commissioner-cum-land Acquis ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ624
N.K. Patil, J.1. The instant cross-objection in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4730 of 2002 by cross-objector is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th March, 2002 in LAC No. 87 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur, on the ground that, enhancement of market value made by Reference Court is inadequate and the cross-objector is entitled for further enhancement of compensation. In this cross-objection, the cross-objector has restricted his claim at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre, which comes to Rs. 1,93,500/- for 1 acre 3 guntas.2. Land bearing Block No. 615/A/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas situate at Indi Town coming within the limits of Indi Town Municipality has been notified and acquired by State Government through respondent herein for the purpose of 'construction of microwave tower and its building' vide its preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published on 11th May, 1989. The L...
Vasanth J. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1764; 2006(2)KarLJ565
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the endorsement issued on 11-11-2003 and 4-6-2004, vide Annexures-H and J rejecting the request made for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The claim for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules'), there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the step children of the deceased.2. Before dealing with the legal point that is canvassed by the Counsel for the petitioner, few facts which will have bearing on the question raised can be referred to.Petitioner is the son of Smt. Janakamma born out of the wedlock between Smt. Janakamma and her first husband. After the death of the father of the petitioner Smt. Janakamma contracted another marriage with one S. Keriyappa on 24-4-1986. This was a registered marriage. It is claimed that at the time ...
Nice Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (int)-18 South Zon ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC296(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') was undoubtedly a piece of legislation providing a major source of revenue to the State.2. Though many of the products which were being subjected to tax in the course of sales transaction have now been taken out of the purview of levy of tax under this Act and have been made subject-matter for levy of tax under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (See [2005] 139 STC (St.) (Suppl.) 169), the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 continues to be current and is made use of for levy of tax in respect of some items still covered under this Act.3. Quite naturally, the Legislature had taken care to provide for many protective/preventive provisions to ensure that there is no leakage of revenue and had provided for deterrent provisions to instil a sense of fear or obedience in the minds of the evaders and even provisions for prosecution in case of chronic defaulters, etc.4. Section 29 of the Act is one such pro...
Srikant Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1557; ILR2006KAR898; 2006(2)KarLJ120
ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is before us challenging the detention order dated 26.5.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Bijapur ordering detention of his brother viz., Sri Shi valingappa S/o Veerappa under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act No. 12/ 85.) The said detention order has been approved by the Government and the Advisory Board. The main grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the said order is the noncompliance of the procedure contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the petitioner therefore contends that the fundamental right guaranteed to him has been violated. The petitioner has more specifically contended that the detaining authority has not provided the opportunity of making representation and this right of the detenue to make such a representation has not been made known to ...
Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited Vs. Sandesh Kumar A. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant138; 2006(2)ARBLR282(Kar); 2006(2)KarLJ55
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The appellant is a non-banking financial institution. It had provided respondent 1, an. Ambassador car under a hire-purchase agreement. Respondents 2 to 4 had stood as guarantors to secure the due repayment in terms of the agreement and had executed the same along with Respondent 1. Respondent 1 had defaulted in payment of the installments as provided under the agreement. Consequently, the appellant seized and took possession of the vehicle and brought the same to public auction. The amount realised by way of auction sale was insufficient to satisfy the outstanding liability of respondent 1. Therefore, in terms of the agreement, the appellant referred the matter to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) and raised a claim. The named Arbitrator having passed an award in favour of the appellant directing respondent 1 to pay Rs. 84,022/- with interest at 24% per annum along with costs of proceed...
Seethamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ116
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 9-3-1988 in proceeding No. LRA 220 of 1987 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur ('Appellate Authority for short) in reversing the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppa, dated 13-5-1987 in KLR:2111A and 2111B/1974-75 so far as it relates to 28 guntas in Sy. Nos. 62/3 and 62/4, has presented this revision petition.2. This is a tenant's revision petition. The husband of the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the lands in question and after the death of her husband, she has succeeded to the same. Petitioner is in possession, enjoyment and in cultivation of the same. Accordingly, she has filed Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights before the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Koppa, stating that, she is the tenant in respect of 30 guntas in Sy. No. 62. The said application filed by the petitioner was registered as KLR:2111A and 2111B/1974-75. The said applicatio...
K.S. Usha Vs. Branch/Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC31; 2006ACJ2319; AIR2006Kant157; ILR2006KAR1119; 2006(2)KarLJ652
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J. 1. Petitioner is the widow of G.L. Jagadeesh who died in a road traffic accident on 29-8-2002. During the life time of her husband, he had assured his life and obtained a policy for Rs. 25,000/- vide bearing No. 610984825. The above policy was yearly money back policy with accident benefits. In the event o f death of the life assured in an accident, as per the terms and conditions of the policy double the sum assured has to be given to the nominee. Petitioner requested the respondent to honour her claim by producing relevant records. As per Annexure-D dated 27-1-2003 respondent called upon the petitioner to produce the driving licence of deceased GL. Jagadeesh in order to honour the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner sent a reply as per Annexure-E stating that she was informed by her husband about the driving licence obtained by him during his life time and that she is not aware of the office of RTO which had issued the licence in favour of her husband. She fur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »