Karnataka Court June 2006 Judgments

Basappa S/O Channabasappa (Since Deceased by His Lrs. Smt. C.B. Rathna ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ petition in the third round before this Court at the instance of the purchaser of a piece of agricultural land measuring 2 acres in Survey No. 29/1 of Belliganudu village, Channagiri Taluk of Davangere district, who had purchased the land in question in an auction sale conducted by the bank in whose favour the land had been mortgaged for securing a loan raised by the owner of the land at that time. The petitioner purchased the land in such court auction sale in terms of the sale transaction dated 24-11-1987. It is the validity of this transaction and the preceding transaction of sale in the year 1966 effected by the original grantee one Rangappa in whose favour this land had been granted in terms of the grant order dated 13-12-1961 under the Mysore Land Revenue Code and as a person belonging to scheduled caste with certain conditions, that were invalidated by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of t...

T. Hanumanthappa S/O Hanamanthappa and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR2870; 2006(5)KarLJ1

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed in public interest by the President, Vice President and three Councillors of the Town Municipal Council, Sindhanur, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 not to hold elections to the Town Municipal Council, Sindhanur, till the completion of the process of delimitation/determination/constitution of wards as per the 2001 census and for other appropriate reliefs.2. The facts in brief are as under :In the last elections held in 2001 to the Town Municipal Council, Sindhanur, the number of wards/seats was 27 as statutorily determined under the provisions of Section 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The determination of the number of wards in a Town Municipal Council is based on the population of the Municipality. The election in 2001 was based on the population as ascertained in 1991 census. In 2001 census, as officially published, the population of Sindhanur Town Mu...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Bangalore Regional Office Rep ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)ACC626; 2007ACJ30; 2006(5)KarLJ347

1. The question involved in this appeal by the Insurance Company is whether the Tribunal could have awarded compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) when the claim petition was filed simultaneously under Sections 166 and 163A of the Act.2. The facts necessary for our purpose briefly stated are to the effect that a claim petition was filed under Section 166 read with Section 163A of the Act by the claimants and the Tribunal, after considering the evidence placed before it, found that the income of the deceased was not more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. Therefore, it suo-moto treated the petition as one under Section 163A of the Act when no such option was exercised by the claimants and proceeded to award the compensation of Rs. 4,57,833/- by putting the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. Incidentally, this is a case where the two vehicles were involved in the accident and one of the vehicles had no insurance coverage.3. We have heard the submi...

The Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Union (Now called the Karna ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR2691; 2007(4)KarLJ235;

N. Kumar, J.1. Writ Appeal Nos. 1953/1994 and 2595/1994 are against the common order passed in Writ Petition Nos. 6724/1986, 8151/1986 and 9092/1986. As the decision in the said appeals would have a direct bearing and could be disposed of in similar terms, the W.P. 29573/1996 was ordered to be posted along with the aforesaid Writ Appeals. That is how all these matters are before us for final hearing.2. In W.P.No. 6724/1986 KEB Diploma Engineers Association (Registered) and another sought for striking down Clause 7(d) of Chapter V of Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotions Regulations (hereinafter for short called as 'the regulations'). In W.P.No. 8151/1986 the notification as per Annexure-C was sought to be declared as unconstitutional. In W.P.No. 9092/1986 quashing of Annexure-D, the explanation offered by the Karnataka Electricity Board dated 2.6.1986 and the settlement dated 30.9.1974 entered into between the parties was sought. In W.P.No. 29573/1996 the petitioners h...

B.A. Umashankar, Major S/O Late Andanappa Vs. Smt. Razia Begum,

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ305

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.05 passed in HRC No. 68/02 by the II Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in allowing the respondents to re-enter the petition premises after reconstruction as per the provisions of Section 27(2)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the landlord is before this Court in revision.2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that although the trial Court has ordered for possession of the petition premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, it has failed to notice the approved building plan wherein the plan is to put up a new building in the entire area of the petition premises and not in 75% of the area. Under such circumstances, the question of reentry does not arise as he is protected under Section 27(2)(a)(e)(f) and (g) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Accordingly, sought for to modify the order passed b...

R.B. Swarnagauri W/O Late R.V. Babu Rao, Vs. the Zilla Panchayat by It ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant33

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In the instant case, petitioners have assailed the correctness of the order dated 27th November 2003 passed by second respondent in proceedings bearing No. (sic) 213/98-99 and allow the claim petition filed by petitioners. Further, they have sought for a direction, directing the respondents to pay the compensation to petitioners within a specified period.2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, earlier, petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 5105/2001 seeking a direction, directing the respondents to consider the representation made by petitioners claiming compensation for the untimely unnatural death of Babu Rao, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by its order dated 30th May 2002, directing the second respondent herein to consider the claim petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law. After the disposal of the said writ petition, peti...

Sri S. Shivalingaiah S/O Late Sidde Gowda Vs. the State of Karnataka, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ425

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. The petitioner seeks relief at the hands of this Court and his grievance is that R-2 Land Tribunal has passed the order dated 29.8.1979 rejecting the claim of his father for occupancy rights in respect of 1.09 acres of land in S. No. 116 and 5 acres of land in S. No. 113 of Jeegenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the contesting R-3.3. It is the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the Land Tribunal was divided in its opinion as to the relationship between the petitioner's father and the landlord. It is submitted that the Chairman of the Land Tribunal did come to the conclusion that there was tenant-landlord relationship between the petitioner's father and the respondents before it, whereas all other members of the Tribunal were of the opinion that the petitioner's father was not a tenant. Ultimately, the Land Tribunal held that the decision of the majority prevails and as such, the applica...

M.T. Krishnappa S/O Thimmegowda and T. Thimmaiah S/O Thimmegowda Vs. E ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR2728; 2006(5)KarLJ226

N. Ananda, J.1. In this writ appeal, appellants have called in question the order passed in W.P.Nos.20866-68/2001 dated 18-1-2005.2. This Court dealing with an intra Court appeal under writ jurisdiction, would normally refrain from examining the facts in detail. However, in the instant case, we are constrained to go into the factual details as the order impugned is preceded by series of orders passed by both quasi-judicial and judicial authorities and the lis between the parties is lingering since over a decade and half.3. In this appeal, appellants-1 and 2 would be collectively referred to as the appellants and respondents-1 to 3 would be collectively referred to as the respondents.4. The facts and the judicial and quasi-judicial orders which preceded the impugned order are as follows:The land bearing Sy. No. 40 in an extent of 200 acres is gomal land of Balenahalli village, Mandya Taluk. The major extent of land was carved out by the Forest department and has been converted into a fo...

Rajendra Prasad S/O Hollappa, Major Vs. M. Shivaraj Major, Driver

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2007)BC173; 2006CriLJ3737; ILR2006KAR2958; 2006(5)KarLJ493

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent - accused issued cheque Ex. P1 for Rs. 60,000 towards payment of debt liability. Ex.P1 is dishonoured on its presentation. Statutory notice is issued and a private complaint is filed. Per contra, the accused contends that he has not borrowed any loan and he has not issued the cheque Ex.P1 to the complainant. The signature of Ex. P1 is disputed.2.The loan of Rs. 60,000/- was paid by PW1 to the accused on 10.11.96 in the presence of one Vijaykumar Reddy. PW 3 in his evidence states that a lose cheque - Ex.P1 was issued to the accused on 7.12.95 Except the signature of the accused on the cheque, the rest of the contents are not in his hand and the ink is differenty. The court finds that there is discrepancy between the evidence of PW2 and PW 1 with regard to payment of Rs. 60,000/- and issuance of cheque. In view of the said reason, the Court acquitted the accused holding that the existence of the debt liability is not established.3. PW 3 nodoubt makes...

Neelawwa W/O Irappa Sarawari (Since Deceased by Her L.R. Irappa Son of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant260; ILR2006KAR2744; 2006(5)KarLJ481

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal. For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status before the trial court.2. One Neelawwa filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her half share against the respondents-defendants in O.S. 204/1995 before the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belgaum. According to the plaint averments, plaintiff Neelawwa and Yellawwa were daughters of Kallappa who was the absolute owner of the ault properties. Kallappa died on 3.1.1947. Plaintiff's mother Shivavva died on 18.6.1995. Plaintiff's younger sister Yellawwa died on 5.8.1994. 1st defendant is the husband of Yellawwa and defendants 2 to 6 are the children of Yellawwa. Plaintiff filed the above suit claiming half share in all the suit properties by separate metes and bounds on the ground that after the death of Kallappa and Shivavva suit properties are to be divided between the defendants who are the legal representatives of her sister Yellawwa and herself. ...