Karnataka Court June 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.
Hanumappa Sannamallappa Dhanammanavar, Vs. Mukkappa Yellappa Kusagalla ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR2742
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in revision petition No. 43/2002 dated 14.06.2002 contending that the said order is without jurisdiction as the order in revision petition has been passed at the stage of admission without notifying the petitioners, who are title affected parties and the order passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records has been set aside without notifying the petitioners.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 8 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 9 and 10.3. It is clear from a perusal of the material on record that the order passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records was challenged in revision petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the order impugned in the revision petition could no...
Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas608(Kar); ILR2006KAR3567
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In the Writ Petitions, respondents 2 and 3 are not represented despite service of notices. Hence, Sri B. Rudra Gowda, Learned Standing Counsel for the KSFC, is directed to take notice on their behalf.2. In the writ petitions, the Mandamus sought is to direct KSFC to pay the Customs and Central Excise duties adjudicated with interest thereon payable by the first respondent in both the writ petitions. Since the KSFC has realised the amounts by selling the properties of first respondents, the directions are sought to KSFC to clear the dues. Similar was the prayer in the writ petition out of which the writ appeal has arisen. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the Union of India shall recover the amount under the provisions of the relevant statute. Against that order the writ appeal is filed.3. For the recovery of the amounts adjudicated under the relevant statutes, the Union of India shall initiate recovery proceedings under the respecti...
Smt. Sarojamma C. Huchegondar (D) by L.R. Vs. Eshwarappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ908; 2007(3)KarLJ303
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The accused is acquitted of committing an offence punishable Under Sections 504, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. RW. 1 is the victim-complainant. RW. 1 died after recording of evidence and before passing of judgment by the trial Court. The LR of P.W. 1 has filed the appeal with an application seeking leave. Section 378(4) declares that in a case of an acquittal instituted on private complaint with the leave of the Court, the complainant can file an appeal to the High Court. It is also well settled that in the cases prosecuted upon police report when the State does not file an appeal, the victim with the leave of the Court can prefer an appeal.2. The decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in : AIR1967Cal442 in on the death of Monmathanath Haider his heirs and sons Sachindra Nath Haider v. Niranjan Mondal, is relied on to contend that in an appeal filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal, when complainant dies after filing the appeal, the LRs., can come o...
Sri M. Muniswamy Vs. B.P. Krishnappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3721; 2007(6)KarLJ670; 2007(6)AIRKarR249(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 14-9-2005 in W.P. No. 19007/2005. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition.2. The challenge in the writ petition is against Annexure-'D1 order dated 20-6-2005 passed by an Arbitrator in CMP. No. 97/2003. The said order reads as follows:Thus in my considered opinion and view of the relevant clear provisions of law I hold that Ex. P. 2 is not properly stamped and it deserved to be impounded and necessary stamp duty to be calculated and recovered with permissible penalty.Clearly the said orders is an order passed under Section 33(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 which reads as follows:33. Examination and impounding of instruments: (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in-charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his fu...
State by Napoklu Police Station Vs. Chakkera Khader S/O Ummer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3744; 2006(6)KarLJ136
1. This appeal is by the State, being aggrieved of the Judgment of acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madikeri, in C.C. No. 199/96, dated 23.12.1999.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:The accused-Chakkera Khader as well as the injured-Usman are from Yemmemadu village of Madikeri taluk. The injured-Usman used to work in the garden land of the accused. As usual, Usman left his house at 8.30 a.m. on 27.10.1996 armed with a knife and he accompanied the accused. The accused took the knife from the hands of Usman saying that it is very sharp. While they were so proceeding, the accused-Chakkera Khader assaulted Usman over the right calf muscle, resulting in a bleeding injury. Immediately, the injured was shifted to the |Government Hospital, Napoklu, by P.W.1-Mohamed and a complaint was lodged as per Ex.P1. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to the District Hospital, Madikeri, for further treatment, where...
D.C. Venkateshulu S/O D.V. Chandramohan Vs. Karnataka Pre-university E ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ318
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a student who had attended classes in the two-year pre-university course and whose desire to write the examinations and complete the course was snuffed out by the Karnataka Pre-university Education, an organization of the Department of Education, Government of Karnataka, for conducting examinations for the course, and the second respondent college, where the petitioner had admitted and had undergone the course of study.2. The student was not permitted to write the examination on the premise that he had not put in the requisite percentage of attendance in the class; that in a subject or two, the attendance was even below 60% of the total number of classes held for the year and as such the student was not entitled to take up the examinations, but was required to repeat the course.3. It is in such circumstance, the present writ petition contending that the first respondent organization has not properly understood or appreciated the relevant...
Smt. C.V. Shantha W/O N.P. Muddalingaiah and ors. Vs. the State of Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ361
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.Heard the learned Counsels appearing on both sides and perused the material on record. The matters arising out of 'Further Extension of Bhonashankari 6th Stage' layout are also heard along with these matters by consent of parties, as the questions involved in these matters are almost similar.1. These writ petitions are filed by the land/site owners and interested persons challenging the notification issued Under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA Act' for short) dated 08.04.2003 bearing No. BDA/Commissioner/SLAO/79/2003-2004 (published in the official gazette on 09.04,2003) (henceforth called as preliminary notification) and the notification issued Under Section 19(1) of the 'BDA Act' dated 09.09.2003 bearing No. Na Aa Ee/749/Bem Bhu Swa/2003, published in the official gazette on 10.09.2003 (hereafter called as final notification). By issuing said notifications, the Bangalore Development Authority ...
A.M. Subbamma W/O Late A.P. Mandanna Vs. A.V. Kushalappa S/O Late Pala ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ79
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Appellant in this appeal was an objector in Exc. 15/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Madikeri, which application was filed by the appellant under Order-21 Rule-97 of CPC. R-1 was the D.Hr. and R-2 to 8 were the J. Drs. before the trial court. For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status before the trial court.2. Kushalappa, D. Hr., was the plaintiff in O.S. 15/90 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Madikeri. The suit was filed by him for partition and separate possession of his share in respect of plaint A-Schedule property and for declaration in respect of plaint B- Schedule property. The suit filed by (sic) Kushalappa was decreed in part so far as it relates to B-schedule property and the partition in respect of A-schedule property was rejected. Against which he preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA 780/1996. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, A.P. Mandanna who was one of the respondent...
Maniram Industrial Enterprises Repr. by Its General Manager Mrs. A.S. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant262; ILR2006KAR2466; 2006(4)KarLJ675
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In these two appeals the respondent is the landlord/plaintiff and appellant is the tenant/defendant. The petition schedule premises were rented-out to the tenant by the father of the plaintiff. The parties are common. Hence, both these appeals have been heard together at the stage of admission at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The landlord filed two ejectment suits against the tenant in O.S. Nos. 1799/2001 and 8451/2002 in respect of the schedule premises respectively and after contest, the same have been decreed by the trial Court by the judgments and decrees under these appeals. The tenant has assailed the legality and correctness of the same by urging various grounds. The legal contentions urged on behalf of the tenants will be dealt with separately.3. During the pendency of these appeals, applications have been filed. I.A.I/2005 for producing additional documents, I.A.III/2005 for amendment of ...
Sri Chandrashekar S/O Papaiah Vs. Sri Eregowda S/O Chikkegowda and Uni ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ83; 2007(4)KarLJ598
1. The dismissal of the claim petition has given rise to this appeal and the only point that is involved in this matter is whether Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to seek relief from the forum under the E.S.I. Act2. The learned Counsel for the appellant Sri K.V. Narasimhan submitted that the accident in question took place on a public road before the appellant could enter his office premises and further, the appellant was going on his own bicycle when the accident took place involving a tempo. Therefore, it was submitted that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act as well as on the judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.N. Thipperudraiah, reported in I.L.R 1997 KAR 292, on that point.3. Having heard the submissions made by both sides, it is clear from the facts narrated in the course of the order passed by the Tribunal that the appellant was going on his own bicycle and just before entering the office...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »