Karnataka Court November 2007 Judgments
Tukaram Sheshagiri Shanbhag Since Dead by L.Rs. (Ananth Tukaram Shanbh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ577; 2008(3)KLJ577; 2008(1)KCCR98; 2008(2)AIRKarR330; 2008AIHC1992(Kar); 2008(1)KCCR98; 2008(2)AIRKarR330; 2008AIHC1992(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. An unsuccessful plaintiff has come up with this appeal under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2002 passed in RA. 15/98 on the file of the Prl Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Karwar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1997 in OS. 44/88 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Ankola.2. Initially, the appellant/plaintiff herein Tukaram sheshagiri Shanbhag filed a suit against the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 and two others with a prayer to restrain the respondents to form a road in the lane bearing Sy. No. 2-B measuring 1 Guntas 4 1/2 Annas and Sy. No. 2-A2 measuring 16 Guntas of Madanakeri village in Ankola Taluk.3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the suit schedule property belong to himself and his family members and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they are actually cultivating the lands in question and he has constructed a residential house in the suit schedule property i.e., Sy...
Tag this Judgment!Gujjala Hulagappa S/O Hampavva (Since Dead by L.Rs. Dodda Venkoba S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ479; 2008(1)KCCR225; 2008(2)AIRKarR366; AIR2008NOC1882; 2008AIHC1995(Kar)
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 11-12-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Hospet in R.A. No. 50/1993 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16-10-1993 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Hospet in O.S. No. 242/1990.2. For convenience, parties will be referred to by their rankings before the trial Court3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No. 114 (old Nos. 124 & 125) (previous Nos. 137 & 138), 20th Ward, Ukkadakeri, Hospet, Bellary District. He purchased the said property under registered sale deed dated 3-9-1975 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right, title and interest He has also paid taxes regularly in respect of the suit schedule property. The first defendant illegally started constructing a pucca building without obtaining municipal license just in front and adjoining the sout...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Narayan S. Bhat S/O Shivaram Bhat Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR396; 2008(3)KarLJ410; 2008(2)KCCR818; 2008(2)AIRKarR316
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned Notification dated 16th March 2007 bearing No. OE 40 Ka.Gru.Se 2007 vide Annexure B issued by first respondent, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The facts in brief are that, petitioner was appointed as honorary District Commandant, Home Guards North Canara District under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Home Guards Act, 1962 by Notification dated 24th October 2002 vide Annexure A. Being the District Commandant of Home Guards, he has got opened new unit at Kathur in Mundagod Taluk, Karwar District and conducted training camps and sports in the Home Guards Force in the District and has also recruited Home Guards for the Karwar District for smooth functioning of the Home Guards in the District. His services to Home Guards has been appreciated and a Certificate has been issued to that effect by first respondent and there is no blemish in his entire service records and that, he has been rendering h...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. H.V. Suresh S/O. Late N. Venkata Jetty and ors. Vs. State of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1013; 2008(1)KarLJ680
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. The respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint in P.C.R. No. 88/2000 under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioners herein have committed an offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120-B, 109 further read with Section 34 IPC. In pursuance of the private complaint, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the complaint and thereafter based on the sworn statement of the complainant and the material, issued summons, and referred the matter to the Police for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Police on investigation submitted a 'B' report on 23.6.2001. Thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing on 1.12.2001, the complainant and his Counsel were absent, on the said day. The learned Magistrate accepted the 'B' report. However, at later stage, the complainant filed an application recalling the order of acceptance of the 'B' report. The learned Magistrate recalled the order and posted the matter to h...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekhar Ningappa Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1689; 2008(1)KarLJ458; p2008(1)KCCR340; 2008(2)AIRKarR100; AIR2008NOC1346; 2008(3)ICC678; 2008(4)CivilLJ504; 2008AIHC1646(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Dharwad dismissing Misc. Application No. 112/2002 filed by this petitioner for reviewing the earlier order dated 20.3.2002 in LAC No. 41/1993 on the file of that Court which was a reference at the instance of the petitioner seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the land acquired in the name of the petitioner.2. Under the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Reference Court made an observation that entertaining applications by persons who were not parties before the land Acquisition Officer in the reference made under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation though appear to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, for giving a finality to the dispute between the parties, it may be desirable to examine such question and therefore, the order does not call for rev...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala W/O Ganapati Sindhe Vs. Shivaji S/O Ganapti Pol
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ360; 2008(1)KLJ360; 2008(1)KCCR334; 2008(2)AIRKarR94; AIR2008NOC1003; 2008(2)ICC547; 2008AIHC1641(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2004 passed in SC No. 62 of 1995, on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Jamkhandi, whereby the learned trial judge has dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner, a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,000/- based on the pronote said to have been executed by the respondent-defendant on 19-12-1992.2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court contending, inter alia, that the learned trial judge erred in dismissing the suit; that the suit could not have been dismissed in the wake of a clear admission by the defendant about the execution of the document; that the defendant having himself admitted signing of the pronote and a presumption available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, the Act], operated in favour of the plaintiff and the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gangadhar S/O Ningusa Baddi Vs. Sri. Raghunathasa S/O Fakirasa Mag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1006; 2008(4)KarLJ279
A.C. Kabbin, J.1. The point of law that has arisen in the present appeal is:Whether the cause of action for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises merely by issuing a notice of dishonour of cheque?2. The appellant herein was the complainant in C.C. No. 131/1998 on the file of the J.M.F.C. (I Court) Hubli, and the respondent was the accused in that case. The contention of the appellant was that on the request of the respondent be had advanced an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as hand loan to the respondent in the month of January 1998 and that when he pressed for its repayment, the accused - respondent had issued a cheque bearing No. 449421 dated 27-03-1998 for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on the State Bank of India, but that on presentation of the said cheque it was dishonoured. The appellant alleged that despite service of notice of dishonour, the respondent having failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time, has committed an offence punishable unde...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kodandarama Reddy S/O Late Sri Nagappa Reddy Vs. Graphite India Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR192; 2008(1)KarLJ703; 2008(1)KCCR515; 2008(1)AIRKarR404; AIR2008NOC632; 2008(2)ICC835; 2008AIHC1385(Kar)
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties. This is a defendant's appeal challenging an order allowing an application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.The facts briefly stated are as follows:The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit, O.S. 8191/2001. It is a Trade Union which has come into existence on 16.9.2001. The second respondent is yet another registered Trade Union and is the second defendant in the suit. The appellant was the first defendant. He was the president of the second defendant as on the date of the suit. The relief claimed in the suit is for a declaration that the sale of the suit schedule property by the second defendant to the first defendant under a sale deed dated 31.1.2001, is null and void and that the property belongs to the employees of M/s Graphite India Limited represented by the plaintiff.2. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the suit property belonged to the second defendant, but, the appellant who was ...
Tag this Judgment!Bellary Power (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Standard Industrial Engineering Comp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: [2009]151CompCas195(Kar); [2010]97SCL138(Kar)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellant was the respondent in the Company Petition No. 180 of 2001 (Standard Industrial Engineering Company v. Bellary Power (India) P. Ltd. [2006] 133 Comp Cas 787 (Kar)), which petition was instituted by the respondent herein under Section 433(e) and (f) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. On November 21, 2005, the company petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and the appellant-company is ordered to be wound up. According to the respondent, the petitioner herein had placed a work order on November 11, 1998, for fabrication of 440 metric tons of steel structures for boiler house roof trusses, for its thermal power plant at Bellary at a total value of Rs. 23,32,000. The appellant having supplied the required raw material to the respondent herein to complete the job of fabrication and the same was fabricated by the respondent to the satisfaction of the appellant herein. Accordingly, the respondent raised a bill dated November 26, 19...
Tag this Judgment!World Resorts Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 19 ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR565; (2009)20VST642(Karn); 2008(2)AIRKarR248; AIR2008NOC1270.
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is a typical illustration of gross abuse of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.Petitioner is an artificial person - a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and who claims to be a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [for short, KST Act] and Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 [for short, KTL Act] who has come up with prayers which on the face of it may not be achievable, with inadequate pleadings to support the prayers and on irrelevant grounds urged in support of the writ petition.2. This writ petition is in the context of certain garnishee notices that had been issued to the bankers of the petitioner M/s. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore, M/s. Andhra Bank, Vidyapeetha Circle, Bangalore and Punjab National Bank, M G Road, Bangalore, under Section 14 of the KST Act [copies produced at Annexures - E, F, G, H and J] and also notice under Section 8A of the KTL Act, pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »