Karnataka Court August 2006 Judgments

B.G. Rajashekar, Advocate Vs. the Karnataka State Bar Council,

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a member of the Bar, who is facing disciplinary proceedings before the Karnataka State Bar Council - first respondent - pursuant to a complaint lodged by the third respondent, who was a client of the petitioner. The complaint was during the year 2001, at which time the petitioner, as averred in the petition, had withdrawn his professional services to the third respondent; that it was so withdrawn from 1999 onwards.2. The complaint addressed to the Bar Council inter alia, alleged professional misconduct on the part of the petitioner. On receipt of the complaint, it appears, the Secretary of the first respondent-Bar Council had noted that it is to be placed before the scrutiny committee in terms of the note dated 28-11-2001. The scrutiny committee had given a report on 13-12-2001. The committee was of the opinion that the complainant had made out a prima facie case against the respondent-petitioner and accordingly notice may be issued, cal...

Punjab National Bank Industrial Finance Branch Represented by Its Agm ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant9; [2006]134CompCas456(Kar)

1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal and the same is accordingly disposed of by this judgment.2. This is an intra court appeal filed by the appellant Bank under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against an one line interim order dated 13.7.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 16245 of 2005 which is still pending on the file of the learned single Judge. The impugned interim order made by the learned single Judge reads as under:Issue Rule. Interim order as prayed for3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant case papers including the impugned interim order passed by the learned single Jude as extracted above. We have also been taken through the provisions of the relevant enactments by the learned Counsel for the parties to substantiate their submissions in the matter.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Bank apart from apprisi...

Narayanappa Vs. Anandamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2007Kant1; 2007(3)KarLJ39; 2007(2)CivilLJ512.

N.K. Patil, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.7.2001 passed in R.A. No. 152/1999 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) Kolar, in allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1999 passed in O.S. No 608/1995 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) Malur, has presented this regular second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant herein before the Trial Court in O.S.No. 608/1995 is that, he is the adjacent land owner and the defendant-respondent, her family members, etc. may be restrained from interfering in any manner with peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property, on the ground that, the suit schedule property is a Government road measuring 15 feet width bounded on East by Gangappa's land, West by plaintiff and defendant's house, North by Railway line and south by same road running towards south, which is situated at Mittiganahalli village, Malur Taluk. Further, it is the case...

Chandrashekharappa S/O Basappa Madivalar Vs. State of Karnataka Repres ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(5)AIRKarR118; AIR2008NOC2803

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 74(ii)(b) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules 1993, (for short 'the Rules'),2. Petitioner is a contestant in the elections held for electing the members of the Grama Panchayat, Hiremoraba. The Grama Panchayat, consists of three Wards for which reservations were made in favor of General Category, Backward Class 'B' Group and Scheduled Caste-Woman. Petitioner, claiming to belong to Madiwala Community, filed nomination on 11.2.2005 under General Category.3. The 5th respondent - Shanthamma Naduvinamani who had contested as a reserved candidate for Scheduled Caste - Woman, got 375 votes and was declared elected. The 6th Respondent - Parwatagouda Paul got 497 votes and was declared elected from Backward Class 'B' Group, whereas from the General Category, the petitioner got 404 votes and another candidate by name Bhimappa Talawar got 383 votes. Petitioner asserts that as he h...

B.R. Sharathchandra S/o B.V. Ramanna since deceased by LR'S (Smt. Vasa ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shaftanagoudar, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and possession and also for a direction to change the mutation entries in his favour. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and consequently dismissed the suit.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Appachu, the propositus of defendants No. 2 to 6 sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 10.3.1974 for Rs. 9,000/- by executing the sale deed marked at Ex.P1. In pursuance of the said sale deed the plaintiff is in possession of the property. As the defendants refused to handover the possession of the property, the suit for declaration and possession is filed.3. Per contra, it is the case of the defendant No. l that the property in question could not have been sold by the propitious of defendant Nos. 2 to 6, as the same is Bane land in as much as the suit property continuous in the Kuppanda family; the property in ...

S. Rangaraju S/O Biligiraiah and Manjula W/O Rangaraju Vs. A. Kandaswa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)AIRKarR264

N.K. Patil, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 4th July 2001 in RA No. 38/1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mysore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 6th August 1998 in O.S. No. 185/1993 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Mysore.2. The plaintiff - respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. One lakh together with future interest at 24% per annum on the ground that, the defendants - appellants herein are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of plaintiff - respondent that, he has entered into an agreement of sale with defendants - appellants herein on 5th July 1990 agreeing that the appellants would sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff -respondent for valuable consideration of Rs. 03,45,000/-. On the date of agreement of sale, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-was paid as advance amount to the defendants -appellants herein in cash and the defendants - appellan...

Electrex (India) Ltd., Rep. by Its Executive Director, Sri Achuth Hegd ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas874(Kar); ILR2006KAR3745; [2007]75SCL545(Kar)

1. M/s Electrex (India) Limited is before us aggrieved by the common order dated 28.11.2002 passed in C.P.NO. EIL.11/58-AA/CLB/SRB/2002 on the file of the Company Law Board, Southern Region, Bench Chennai.2. Appellant is a company and the respondents are depositors of the appellant company having made 1-3 year deposits with the appellant company during the year 2000 aggregating Rs. 8.88 lakhs. The said deposits were received by the appellant company as borrowings utilised towards the working capital requirement of the appellant. Appellant company suffered recession and for variety of reasons it became sick. Reference was made to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR, for short) under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SIC Act, for short), which was registered as case No. 49 of 2000. Thereafter, in terms of the order dated 18.07.2000, BIFR ordered enquiry and issued a direction under Section 16(2) of the SIC Act. IFCI was ...

State of Karnataka Vs. Chetan Tayal S/O. Late Nandakishore Tayal and M ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(5)KarLJ127; 2007(6)SCC410; (2007)3SCC(Cri)189; (2007)2Crimes105(SC); JT2007(7)SC47; 2007(4)KCCRSN272(SC).

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the state of Karnataka under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the Order of discharge dated 12.3.03 of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 passed by the XXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Spl.Judge (NDPS), Bangalore in Spl. C.C. NO. 236/2001 fox the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 25 of the NDPS Act and under Section 489(c) r/w. Section 34 of the I.P.C. The main grounds urged by the revision petitioner-State is that, the court-below grossly erred in discharging the respondents-accused for the aforesaid offences in spite of the seizure of contraband charas i.e. narcotic drugs and the counterfeit notes. The reasons assigned by the trial Court that the contraband charas and the counterfeit notes could be planted by the persons who are inimically disposed off towards them is totally incorrect. Whether the complainant who has seized those contraband articles under the provisions of NDPS Act has violated the provision...

Nagaraja and ors. Vs. Rathnamma W/O. Late Narayanappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellants in RFA No. 64 of 2004 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 1982/84 seeking declaration of title and possession of a portion of a schedule property said to be in encroachment by the defendants.2. The plaintiffs in R.F.A. No. 205/2004 are the co-plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1982/84. The defendants have filed cross objection No. 13/04.3. The disputed suit schedule property alleged to be in encroachment of the defendants measures to an extent of 19 guntas described as kharab attached to Sy. No. 124/1 described in Schedule a to the plaint. The plaintiffs submit that Sy. No. 124/1 totally measures 2 acres 20 guntas. Out of which, the extent of 19 guntas is said to be in encroachment of the defendants. The Plaintiffs seek declaration of title in respect of a schedule property and seek possession of the encroached portion of 19 guntas described in B schedule from the defendants. It is admitted fact that the encroached portion in B schedule is part of kharab. The plainti...

The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Rep. by Its Director, Sri P.M. Kavadia V ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a licensed sugar factory, which is allotted certain cane growing area as ear marked to it for supply of cane by the growers under the provisions of Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order').2. The present grievance of the petitioner is in the context that respondents 3, 4 and 5 have filed applications for setting up new sugar factories and such applications have been made to the State Government, Department of Industries and Commerce. It appears such applications are pending as per the averment in the writ petition.3. Petitioner having come to know about this has represented to the Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar, Petitioner has given a representation to the Director of Industries, Cane Development in Karnataka requesting him not to divert or reduce the cane growing area allocated to the petitioner factory as it is likely that in the event of new licenses being issued to start ...