Karnataka Court March 2007 Judgments
Badakana Bhimappa S/O Huchappa Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secre ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ541; 2007(3)KCCRSN149; 2007(5)AIRKarR224
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner was an applicant before the Land Tribunal, Sorab, seeking for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the following lands:VillageSy No. ExtentUdri2182-033292-37620/31-216252-3220416-302. After enquiry, while the land tribunal resolved to grant occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner, as the claim was not opposed by any one, the tribunal found technical difficulties in granting occupancy rights to an extent of 16 acres 13 guntas of land in Sy No 204, as according to the tribunal, the land in Sy No 204 had already been surrendered in favour of the government as excess land and had also been notified in the gazette dated 17-6-1976 and therefore the applicant's request for registration of occupancy rights in respect of this extent of land is to be rejected.3. It is questioning this order the applicant-petitioner had preferred WP No 19178 of 1983. This writ petition, in view of the change of law, had been transferred to the land re...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Chandrashekar S/O Late Rudraiah Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forests ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(3)KAR2799; 2007(3)KCCR1933; 2007(3)AIRKarR195
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent at annexure H dated 11.4.2001 in insisting to pay the malik value at the time of seeking felling permission, has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari and, also to declaring him as the absolute owner of the trees felled and transported in Sy. No. 546 and 547 of Doddamagaravalli Village, Chikmagalur Taluk and to direct the 1st respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 5,32,895/- paid by the petitioner together with interest at 18% from the date of deposit and for such other relief.2. In February 1985 petitioner was granted land to an extent of 3.30 acres in Sy. No. 196 of Doddamagaravalli village wherein he has grown coffee plantation. Another 10.00 acres in the same survey number is said to have been granted to the petitioner's brother during June 1989. These two lands were later renumbered as Sy. No. 546 an 547 and after a family partition, both the lands have fallen to the share of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarappa (Since Deceased by His L.Rs. Sangamma W/O Late Shankarappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR1578; 2007(2)KarLJ125
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. The respondent herein filed O.S.No. 66/90 against Sri Shankrappa, for decree of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The said Shankrappa entered appearance before the trial Court and filed written statement inter alia denying the execution of agreement of sale in favour of the respondent. The said O.S.No. 66/90 came to be decreed vide judgment dated 9.8.96. After passing of the decree in O.S.No. 66/90, the defendant Shankrappa died. The petitioners herein who are the legal representatives of the deceased Shankrappa filed an appeal in R.A.No. 172/88 and the same came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After remand, the respondent adduced evidence and when the matter was set down for arguments, the petitioners filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement. The trial Court after hearing both the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ningajamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2435].ILR2007(2)Kar2435; 2007(3)KLJ275; 2007(3)KCCR1706; 2007(3)AIRKarR541.
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Mr. Sridhar Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3.2. Pursuant to preliminary and final notifications, the land of the petitioner is acquired for Electronic Warfare Range for Defence Department. Suffice it to say that under the general award, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Learned Civil Judge enhanced the same to Rs. 50,000/- per acre in the reference case. With regard to this, an application is made by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act seeking redetermination. The said application was rejected. Hence, an application is made under Section 28-A, Sub-section (3) of the Act seeking reference to the Civil Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said application, which is filed before the Deputy Commissioner, second respondent, is still pending and the matter is not as yet referred. Hence, the present petition seeking a direction to ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd., Branch Sales Office Represented by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR1022]; ILR2007KAR1614; 2007(3)KarLJ367; 2007(3)KCCRSN160; 2007(3)AIRKarR273
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 1.7.2005, 4.8.2005 and 2.1.2007 passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, produced at Annexures D, E and G respectively.2. Petitioner is a Government of India enterprise, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. Respondent is a workman employed by the petitioner company. Respondent filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming certain amounts. On 27.4.2005 respondent filed an application under Section 36 of the Act inter alia objecting the petitioner from engaging the services of an advocate. Petitioner filed objections to the same and the Labour Court by its order dated 1.7.2005 allowed the application filed by the workman and rejected the request of the petitioner for engaging the services of the advocate. The Officers of the Industrial and Commercial Employers Association (for short 'ICEA') filed...
Tag this Judgment!Mounesh Bovi Vs. State by Basavapatna Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ398
1. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Lalithamma is the wife of the accused. Their marriage took place 3 years prior to the incident. The deceased was constantly subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment. The accused is addicted to alcohol. On 2-1-2001 the accused demands money from the deceased. When the deceased refused, the accused assaulted, tied her hands and legs with her saree, doused kerosene and set her ablaze. The neighbours and the mother of the victim P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 1 took her to Primary Health Center, Dyavani. From there the deceased was sent to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere. The deceased had sustained 87% superficial burns. The deceased died on 18-1-2001 while under treatment on account of septicemia and septicemia shock.2. The deceased at the time of admission stated that the burn injuries are caused by her husband. The statement of deceased is recorded by P.W. 21. The Taluk Executive Magistrate on 2-1-2001 at 6.40 p.m. at Ex. P. 19. The dying declaration...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shoba Lakshmi W/O Shankara Rao Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR1566; 2007(3)KCCRSN153; 2007(3)AIRKarR181
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this petition, petitioner is seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 10.12.02 at Annexure 'A' and also to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.1.02 at Annexure 'B' and for such other orders. 2. Petitioner is said to be belonging to Maleru caste and is employed as an Administrative and Accounts Assistant in the office of the 4th respondent i.e., Sahitya Academy, Bangalore; the 4th respondent alleging that she has wrongly stated her caste as Maleru by producing the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and thereby committed a misconduct has referred the matter to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent being the Chairman of the Caste Verification Committee on verification ordered for cancellation of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the 2nd respondent to cancel the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar to th...
Tag this Judgment!Usmansab S/O Mehaboobsab Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer Cum Assistan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR1559
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision petition by the owner of the property is directed against the order dated 02.09.2006 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Koppal dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended in Karnataka ('the Act') in Civil Misc. No. 110/2006 on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation.2. I have heard Sri. Chandrashekar P Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.V. Muralidhara, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Land Acquisition Officer - respondent No. 1 and perused the order impugned herein.3. Facts: The petitioner was the owner of a certain house in Itagi Village, Yelburga Taluk, Koppal District. The State Government published a preliminary notification dated 30.6.1977 under Section 4(1) of the Act followed by a final notification to acquire the aforesaid property of the petitioner along with certain other properties for preservation ...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Abdul Rehaman Vs. Mahadev
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC70; ILR2007KAR2386; 2007(5)KarLJ136
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two Criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are filed against the order passed by JMFC, Dandeli in private complaint Nos. 24/2006 & 25/2006 wherein the Learned JMFC has taken cognizance of the offence and recorded sworn statement of the complainant and issued summons to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the summons could not be served, NBW has been issued for appearance of the petitioner.2. It is clear that when cognizance has been taken and sworn statement is recorded and on the basis of the sworn statement, summons have been issued to the petitioner, unless the accused petitioner appears and contends before the Trial Court that notice is not issued to the correct address of the petitioner and there is non compliance of the provisions of Section 138 Cr.P.C, petitioner cannot contend that he has got a good defence and therefore, proceedings should be quashed. The question as to whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Recruit Raju S/O Shivaji Chavan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Reptd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(2)KarSN19; 2007(3)KCCRSN151; 2007(3)AIRKarR472
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned communication dated 29.10.2005 bearing No. CHQ:WP-10262:05:1:ST1(Discp) vide Annexure-A, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondents to examine the petitioner by an independent medical expert or anybody or authority not under the control or authority of third respondent.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that; petitioner earlier had filed a Writ Petition before this Court in No. 9195/2005 assailing the correctness of the discharge order dated 6.3.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A therein. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 9th August 2005. This Court has allowed the said writ petition in part and a direction was issued to third respondent therein to subject the petitioner to a medical test by an expert or group of experts so as to ascertain the correct height of the petitioner and if it is found that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »