Karnataka Court November 2007 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.
Smt. Geetha V. W/O Prakash Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Bai W/O Late Sri Jinde Mun ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1261; 2008(4)KarLJ496; 2008(1)KCCRSN33; 2008(1)AIRKarR433
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order passed on I.A. under Section 42 (6) (b) (c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 refusing to grant leave and consequently, stopping all further proceedings and passing a decree for eviction. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are referred to in the original proceedings.2. The petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 23 (2) (a) & (r) read with Section 41 (1) (a) (c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Notice was ordered to the respondent. He was duly served. He entered appearance on 14-12-2006 through an Advocate who filed power for the respondent. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for objections to the main petition by 2-1-2007. On that day, the Advocate for the respondent filed objections to the main petition as well as an I.A. under Section 42 (6) (b) (c) of the Act seeking leave of th...
Smt. Saraswati W/O Hanamant Koujalgi Vs. Sri Vasant Ramachandra Dullol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ417; 2008(2)KCCR633; 2008(1)AIRKarR271; 2008(2)ICC561(DB)
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. These writ appeals arise from different and independent orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions, In these cases though parties are different, orders are unrelated, basically before the learned Single Judge various orders of Civil Courts have been challenged invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 or Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, who dealt with the respective writ petitions, has passed independent orders and aggrieved by the same, the individual parties have filed these writ appeals.2. Though there is nothing common in respect of the decisions of the learned Single Judge in these writ petitions, they have been taken together for consideration, in the following peculiar circumstance. After filing the writ appeals, the Registry of the High Court has raised question of maintainability in each of these appeals, following a Full Bench judgment of this Court in t...
Harsha Wheel Movers Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr. Ashok ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR5227; (2009)20VST27(Karn)
ORDER1. This Revision Petition is filed by the assesses under Section 15A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'KTEG Act' for short), being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in STA No. 1041/2000 dated 19.10.2006, whereunder, the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore dated 14.7.2000 has been confirmed.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of execution of works contract of building bus body on the chassis supplied by its customers. According to the petitioner, the K.S.R.T.C. being one of its customers brought the Chassis to its workshop for the purpose of building body. The petitioner, alter constructing the body on the Chassis brought by the K.S.R.T.C., has delivered the buses to the K.S.R.T.C. and the buses were removed from the workshop of the petitioner by the K.S.R.T.C. through its drivers.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes...
Sri Pape Gowda S/o Dase Gowda, Ex-Conductor (KSRTC) Died by LR's. H.P. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR46; 2008(1)KarLJ646; 2008(2)AIRKarR105; 2008LabIC(NOC)542(Kar)(DB)
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This appeal is listed today for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondent. With the consent of learned Counsel appealing on both sides, the appeal itself is heard for final disposal, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.2. Brief facts necessary for consideration and disposal of this appeal are:The appellant is the son of late Papegowda, who was a conductor in the respondent establishment. The said Papegowda (hereinafter called as 'the Workman) was charged, for not issuing tickets to nine passengers and not collecting fare of Rs. 1.25 each From them on 25.03.1995. On holding a department enquiry, 'the Workman was dismissed from service on 21.03.1998 by the respondent. The dismissal order was questioned by 'the Workman' by filing an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short The Act) before the about Cout, Chickmagalur and the same was registered as IDA 33/ 1998, After enquiry the Labour Court by its a...
Sri P.G. Ramesh S/O Sri P.G. Reddy Vs. the State of Karnataka Represen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR8; 2008(1)KarLJ13; 2008(1)AIRKarR592(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ petition challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 4224 of 2007 was admitted on 19.9.2007. Respondents were given two weeks to file counter-affidavit. Though Respondent No. 3 has filed statement of objections, Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any counter-affidavit.2. The challenge in Application No. 4224 of 2007 was against the transfer of the applicant (3rd respondent herein) as Commissioner, Shimoga Urban Development Authority. Admittedly there was no stay of the impugned transfer during the pendency of Application No. 4224/2007. Consequently the impugned order of transfer had taken effect and the 3rd respondent has been functioning as Commissioner, Shimoga Urban Development Authority and the petitioner is not working anywhere as he has not been given any posting.3. According to Sub-section (1) of Section-365 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), notwithstanding a...
The Bangalore Development Authority by Its Commissioner Jayakar Jerome ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR5184; 2008(1)KarLJ684; ILR2007(4)Kar5184; 2008(1)KLJ684; 2008(1)AIRKarR419; 2008CriLJNOC320(DB)
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This Criminal Contempt Petition is filed by the Bangalore Development Authority against the accused for initiating contempt proceedings and to punish him for abuse of process of the Court, which amounts to criminal contempt.2. The brief facts leading for filing of this criminal contempt petition are, one M.S. Prithviraj, the father of the accused, filed suit in O.S. No. 6463/2000 on the file of XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore seeking a declaration that he perfected title by adverse possession and for injunction in respect of the property bearing Corporation Nos. 619 and 620 situated in 8th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. The BDA filed I.A.IX under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC for rejection of plaint. By order dated 18/9/2003 the Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint for want of cause of action as the property in question was acquired by the BDA. By that time, the accused's father Prithviraj was dead. Against the rejection of the plaint, R....
Munivenkatappa Adopted S/O Late Iragappa, Natural S/O Late Gantajji Mu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ456
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. Admit.2. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:(a) Whether the learned Appellate Judge was justified in reversing the finding of the learned Trial Judge on the question of adoption holding that there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove his adoption?(b) Whether the suit property is a joint family property of the defendants?(c) Whether the learned Appellate Judge was justified in recording a finding that the suit property is a Joint Family Property of the defendants' family i.e., the genetic family of the plaintiff.3. The records arc received and the matter is taken up for final disposal with consent.4. During the course of this Judgment, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.5. The plaintiff's suit is for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property, for delivery of vacant possession and to pay damages was decreed on contest, by the learned Trial J...
Shivappa Vs. Basavaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR601; 2008(2)KCCR990; 2008(3)CivilLJ528; 2008(3)ICC267
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner/defendant/appellant in M.A.No. 4/07 on the file of the District Judge at Haveri, is before this Court praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 1.8.2007 made in M.A.No. 4/07, at Annexure-'E'.2. Keeping in view that the Learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC as not maintainable, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.3. Heard arguments.4. A short question that arises for consideration is:Whether the Learned District judge is justified in dismissing the appeal filed under Section 104(1) read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, on the ground that it is not maintainable under Section 104(2) of CPC? 5. Answer to the above question is in the negative for the following reasons:Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Court (District Court) under Section 104(1) read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, challenging the order made on an application ...
R. Venkatadas S/O Late R.L. Ramanatha Sharma Vs. Master Varun S/O R. V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ170; 2008(2)KLJ170; 2008(2)KCCR815; 2008(1)AIRKarR278; AIR2008NOC353; 2008(2)ICC856; 2008AIHC1261(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This revision petition is by the defendant in O.S. No. 470/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mangalore who is facing a maintenance claim by his minor son in the suit and who had raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit before that Court for want of jurisdiction.2. The trial Court which had framed an issue on the preliminary objection as additional issue No. 1 having answered that issue in favour of the respondent -plaintiff and having held that the suit was very much maintainable before the Court for claiming the relief of maintenance in favour of the minor son of the petitioner, the present revision petition invoking the provision of Section 115 of CPC.3. Notice having been issued, the respondent has entered appearance. Revision petition is resisted.4. I have heard Smt. Pushpalatha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned Counsel for the respondent.5. Submission of Smt. Pushpalat...
Syed Imtiyaz Vs. Milka Vatsala
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ144
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner/defendant in O.S. No. 368 of 2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division); Mysore, is before this Court praying for quashing the impugned order dated 27-9-2007 passed on I.A. No. I filed in the suit at Annexure-G.Keeping in view the nature of the impugned order passed, notice to the respondent/plaintiff is dispensed with.2. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the petitioner and the respondent are hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' and 'the plaintiff, respectively, as arrayed in the suit.3. Heard arguments.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under:The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 368 of 2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Mysore, against the defendant for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages.The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement dated 1-9-2007 under Order 8, Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »