Karnataka Court June 2006 Judgments

Maruthi Sales Corporation by Its Prop. Smt. Gayatri N. Rao D/O K.T. De ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ248

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner assailing the correctness of the tender notification dated 27th May 2006 bearing No. BCM/3/CR/1/2006-07 issued by the District Officer, Department of District Backward Classes and Minorities, Tumkur District, which was published in the Kennada daily news paper 'Praja Pragati' on 28th May 2005 vide Annexure B, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to recall the tender by giving sufficient time to the petitioner to file tender form.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that, the Chief Executive Officer of the first respondent Zilla Panchayath, Tumkur, has called the tenders for supply of food articles, fruits, vegetables and other miscellaneous articles which are necessary for hostels run by them within the Tumkur District The said notification could not been carried out since none of the bidders were qualified. Be that as it may.3. The second respondent h...

Devendrappa Maninangappa Mishap S/O Maninangappa P Mishap Vs. the Dy C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR2962

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 Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, wherein 3.5 acres of land belonging to the petitioner comprised in Sy.No. 41/1 situated in Ayodhya village of Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District, belonging to the petitioner has been forfeited to the Government for violating the provisions of conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act').2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is the owner of the land in Sy.No. 41/1 situated in Ayodhya village, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District, measuring 3 acres 5 guntas. It was agricultural land and petitioner made an application for conversion and the same was granted and the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on 23.11.2001 forfeiting the land for violating the conditions of conversion in exercise of the power under Section 96(1). It is the contention of the petitioner that n...

Appasab Babaji Dhabade Major, Agriculture Vs. the Deputy Commissioner ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ156

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 Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum dated 12.12.2001 upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 29.8.2001.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land comprised in Sy. No. 768/3 measuring 12 acres 30 guntas situated at Raibag was the self-acquired property of Smt. Radhabai w/o. Babaji Dhabade. He has two sons Appasah-the petitioner and Balakrishna. Balakrishna died leaving behind his wife respondent No. 4 and children respondents 5 to 7 and 12 to 14. It is the case of the petitioner that Radhabai had executed a will in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the property in his favour and accordingly application was made for entering the name of the petitioner on the basis of the will. The same was objected by the contesting respondents. The Tahsildar allowed the application, the name of the petitioner be entered on the b...

G. Venkataramaiah S/O Late Gopalappa and G. Narayanaswamy S/O Late Gop ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant34; ILR2006KAR3122; 2006(6)KarLJ706

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This is the defendants appeals Respondents were the plaintiffs in O.S.718/1987. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up any construction on the plaint schedule property or from interfering in any manner either by themselves or through their agents with, the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Suit property is a vacant site bearing K.No. 30 of Hebbal-Kempapura village measuring east-west 15 ft. and north-south 80 ft. bounded east by the house of the plaintiff bearing K.No. 11, west by the house of the defendants and vacant land, north by defendants 1/3rd share and south by road. According to the plaintiffs, they are the full and absolute owners of the suit property. Plaintiffs grand-father one Avalappa and Munivenkatappa were brothers and they have divided their joint family properties under an oral partition. The vacant land which was to the west of K.No. 11 measuring 15' x ,120' was...

Sri K. Sham Bhat S/O Sri K. Krishna Bhat Major Vs. Sri Seetharama Bhat ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 19th March 2002 in Misc. Petition No. 13 of 2001, wherein the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order on merits dated 18th April 2001 made in Appeal No. 453 of 1988 and to hear the appeal on merits.3. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner had filed appeal No. 453 of 1988 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 5th July 1988 in a proceeding relating to partition under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was posted for final hearing on 7th April 2001 at Bangalore Camp of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. It is averred, the date of hearing was not inform...

Sri Laxman @ Manik Shattuppa Honagekar S/O Shattuppa Honagekar Vs. the ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, in case No. RB.RTA.213/2003 as per Annexure 'C', allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum and directing the petitioner herein to agitate his claim before the competent Civil Court.2. It is averred in the petition that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction as the revision petition in which the petitioner herein was the respondent was dismissed for default on 08.11.2005 and without issuing notice to the petitioner, the revision petition was restored to file on 23.11.2005 and thereafter, order has been passed on 12.01.2006 allowing the revision petition without hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the order dated 08.11.2005 could not be recalled without notifying the petitioner an...

Sri N. Krishnappa S/O Late Nanjappa Vs. the State of Karnataka Represe ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents-1 to 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 51/2000-2001 dismissing the revision petition in confirming the order affecting mutation in MR. No. 27/91-92 in the name of the 4th respondent-society in respect of land in Sy.No. 25/6 measuring 0.09 guntas situated in Singasandra vilalge, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the said land and his name had been entered in the record of rights from 1970-71 onwards and the name of the 4th respondent has been entered, without holding proper enquiry. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Tahsildar. The said order entering...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Araco Automative India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

R. Gururajan and Jawad Rahim, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by the department. The department aggrieved by the final Order No. 875-877/2005 of the tribunal dated 6.6.2005 has chosen to file this appeal by raising the following questions of law:(a) Whether the tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal when the issue regarding the relevant date of payment of duty and interest is the date on which the goods are cleared from the factory?(b) Whether the tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal when the issue regarding the escalation of prices of cleared goods or revision of rates of duty due to change of classification will not have effect on the date of clearance of goods, whereas there is in implication of duty and interest as the relevant date was the demand of duty and interest with the date of clearance of goods and not the date of escalation of rate revision due to change in classification of goods?2. We have today, disposed of a similar appeal in CEA No. 1/2006 and in the said judg...

Dundappa S/O Vishwanath Pattanshetty, Vs. the State of Karnataka, Depa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ330

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 Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum-respondent No. 4 dated 20/02/2001 as par Annexure 'E' allowing the revision by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Balgaum District, as par Annexure 'D' dated 26/06/1999 and directing that the name of respondent No. 5 shall be entered in respect of his share in the survey records.2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners and respondent No. 5 are the sons of Sri Vishwanath Pattanshetty and Sri Vishvranath Pattanshetty during his life time, due to old age, appointed panchas for effecting partition amongst his sons. The panchas prepared a list dividing the properties amongst the petitioners and respondent No. 5 as per Annexure 'B'. The said Vishwanath Pattanshetty died in the year 1989 and the said partition as per Annexure 'B' was not at all effected at...

R. Govinda Naika S/O Ranga Naika Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3308; 2006(2)KarLJ605

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub-division, Kollegal in R.A.No. 37/2000-01 dated 8th June 2001, wherein on the complaint filed by Smt. Nagamadamma and 12 others, the same is treated as an appeal and the appeal is allowed and MR No. 2/1999-2001 is set-aside and is directed to file an appeal against the decree passed in O.S.No. 329/1998 and 189/1997 and to hold an enquiry in terms of the directions issued in Writ Petition No. 6954/1997 passed by this Court.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not made as a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and the mutation entry which has been made in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a valid decree by the Civil Court has been set-aside without notifying the petitioner and the said order is wholly without jurisdiction and is liabl...