Karnataka Court May 2007 Judgments
Karnataka Small Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd. by Its Managing ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant172; ILR2007KAR2844; 2007(6)KarLJ280
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Though the matter is posted for admission, since the scope of enquiry is very limited, with the consent of both the learned Counsel, the same is taken up for disposal.2. This is a defendant's appeal challenging the decree dated 14.7.2006 passed in O.S. No. 1421/2003 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff.3. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,39,583/- along with interest The trial Court has decreed the suit only on the ground that the defendant has not filed his written statement in view of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC. It is to be noted that having regard to the provisions of Order XII Rule 6, Order V Rule 8 and Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC, the Court cannot act blindly even if written statement is not filed as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu v. Union of India ILR 2005 KAR 4555. The provisions of Oilier VIII Rule 5 of CPC is a directory provision and not mandatory. I...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Balappa Patil and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka by State Pub ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KCCR1873; 2008(5)AIRKarR343; 2008CriLJNOC1284(DB)
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. A2 and A3 are the sons of A1; A3 is the wife of A1; A4 is the wife of A2 and A5 is the daughter of A1. There was a dispute between the family of the accused and the deceased with regard to the share in the yield of mango tree. The deceased was demanding a share and accused had refused to give a share. On 11.4.1994 at about 5.30 p.m., A1 & A2 with wielding clubs accompanied by A3 to A5 and one Maruthi (son of A1) (Juvenile offender) come together to the house of the deceased and call out the deceased. A1 threatens the deceased not to demand any share. When the deceased insists a share, the accused gets flared up. A1 to A3 assault PW1, the son of the deceased comes to rescue he is assaulted by A1 and A2. As a result, the deceased sustained fracture of parietal bone. The deceased in the course of treatment dies two days after the incident on account of coma and Shocked haemmorrage.2. The accused are charged for committing offences Under Section 143, 148, 302, 324 and...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen Kumar S/O Udayaraj and Udayaraj S/O Late Pannalal Vs. Ramesh C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KCCR528; 2008(1)AIRKarR519
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Both these revision petitions are filed by the petitioners under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, challenging the order passed by the 9th and 19th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, in HRC. Nos. 3/2005 and 4/2005.2. The main grounds urged by the petitioners in HRRP. 492/2006 is that the finding recorded by the trial Court that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them is totally incorrect and perverse. The respondent has admitted the tenancy under the deceased mother of the first petitioner. The Court below has totally failed and ignored to consider the lease deed executed by late Pistabai in favour of the respondent. The trial Court has not provided sufficient opportunity for leading oral evidence in HRC.4/2005 filed by this petitioner against the very same respondent in respect of another land. There also the respondent had raised similar contentions disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant, But the Court below held th...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. K.M. Prakash S/O. Late M. Shankarappa Vs. the State of Karnataka, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3108; 2008(2)KarLJ222; ILR2007(3)Kar3108; 2007(4)KCCR2142; 2007(5)AIRKarR111(DB)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 41795/2004 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant filed the Writ Petition challenging the endorsement dated 14.07.2004 Annexure-C issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Raichur rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.2. The father of the appellant late M. Shankarappa was working as Secretary in the Gram Panchayat at Gabbur Village in Devdurga Taluk of Raichur District. He died on 07.01.2001 while in service leaving behind his wife, a Son (the writ petitioner/ appellant herein) and two daughters. The mother of the appellant made an application vide Annexure-B on 08.06.2001 addressed to the Zilla Panchayat, Raichur requesting to appoint her son on compassionate grounds after he attained majority. She had stated in the said application that as she was not keeping good health she was not in a position to t...
Tag this Judgment!Sannamma W/O Mallappa (Since Deceased by Lrs. Nagamma D/O Mallappa and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3641; 2007(6)KarLJ540
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is against the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn)., Nanjangud in RA 17/1998 by order dated 26.8.1999 wherein the lower appellate court has passed an order on remand by this Court in RSA 506/1994 wherein this Court had directed the lower appellate court to consider whether the sale is valid without the court permission; whether the mother can be a defacto guardian entitled to act under Section 11 and whether such a sale is valid; whether there is any legal necessity in the eye of law; even if it be held, whether the sale is binding so far as the mother's share is concerned. While answering the above points raised by this Court, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Hence, this appeal.2. As it transpires, the original suit property bearing Sy. No. 4/1 measuring 3.30 acres situate at Madalli Village of Nanjangud Taluk was mortgaged by one Nanjundappa in favour of the deceased Mallappa on 10.9.1956 for a sum of Rs. 2,...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank, a Bank Constituted Under the Central Act 5 of 1970 Rep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Kant125; III(2008)BC274; [2007]138CompCas867(Kar); ILR2007KAR2449; 2007(6)KarLJ171
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, ('Tribunal' for short) dated 22.12.2006 in ASA No. 35/2005 directing redelivery of possession of the property in question which was proceeded against by the petitioner through its authorised officer under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act' for short).2. Brief facts of the case are as under:Petitioner is a nationalised bank ('Bank' for short). The head office of the Bank is situated at Manipal. The Bank has a branch at Dandeli in Uttara Kannada District. The respondent and two others had availed financial accommodation of over-draft facility from the Bank and secured the said loan by creating unregistered equitable mortgage of the land and the commercial building bearing plot Nos. 62 and 63 situated in Ward No. I-A, CMC, 200 acres layout. J.N. Road, Dandeli, belonging ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Bhatia and Co., a Proprietary Concern, Represented by Its Proprie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ486
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is the plaintiffs' first appeal, being aggrieved of the Order passed on I.A's in O.S. No. 15572/2004 by the learned XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore City, dated 19.04.2006, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w. Section 151 C.P.C., consequently dismissing the suit for specific performance.2. The brief facts of the case are as fallows:The suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit schedule property by directing the defendants to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the balance consideration and for consequential relief. That in pursuance of the notification by the defendants, Binny Limited published in daily newspaper 'The Hindu' dated 11.06.2001 offers for purchase of properties detailed therein, particularly the 'B-Schedule property situated at Commissariat Road, Bangalore, the plaintiff deposited earnest amount of Rs. 5,00,000-00 towards the earnest ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented by Its Section Officer Cum Aut ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-08-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR2497; 2007(5)KarLJ157
ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. The Public Good ought to be the object of the Legislator' - said Jeremy Bentham.A policy decision of the State of Karnataka to declare the State of Karnataka as 'lottery free zone' led to issuance of Notification dated 27.3.2007. The said notification is the cause for all these Writ Petitions.2. As the issues involved are common in all the Writ Petitions and so also the prayers, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The facts leading to these Writ Petitions are as under:In the budget presented for the year 2007-08 on 16.3.2007 on the subject pertaining to 'lottery', the proposal reads thus:Lottery-295Currently, paper lotteries and online lotteries, including interest lotteries are being organized in the State. It is the desire of the people and the Government that these should not be continued in the interest of the society and poor people. Accordingly, I have proposed to abolish all kinds of lotteries in the State from the next ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›