Karnataka Court August 2007 Judgments
Smt. Rukmani W/O Late Ethiraj, Vs. V. Uday Kumar S/O Late B. Venkatesa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR13; 2008(3)KarLJ129; 2007(4)KCCR2566; 2007(6)AIRKarR228; AIR2008NOC69; 2008(2)ICC482(DB)
H.N. Naghmohan Das, J.1. In this appeal the appellants have called in question the order dated 1.4.2006 in FDP No. 10007/1994 passed by the Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore City.2. The subject matter of the litigation is property bearing No. 155/B situated in the compound of premises No. 1 Wheeler Road, Civil Station, Bangalore measuring in all 5600 Sq.ft. (for short 'the schedule property'). The appellants and respondents are relatives except respondent No. 23. The family tree is as under:G.V. Balakrishna (deceased)|___________________________________________________| |Pillama @ Jayamma (deceased) Nagamma (deceased)| Second wife (Deft. NO. 1)| |___________________________ ______________________________| | | | | | |Venkateshalu Pillamma Muniratnam Naidu Devaraj Yatiraj Jayaram Narayan Murthy(Deceased (Deceased (Deceased Deft.2 Deft.5 Deft.4 Deft.3by LRs) by LRs) by LRs) (Deceased (Deceasedby LRs) by LRs)(---------Plaintiffs----------)3. The appellants in this appeal are the ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Krishna Kumar Vs. the Secretary, Revenue Department and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ412; 2007(6)AIRKarR304
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1 Petitioner being aggrieved by the circular dated 24th January, 2005 issued by third respondent vide Annexure-F, insofar as it relates to petitioner, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner, having requisite qualification as prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue (2nd Amendment) Rules, 1999 has applied for licence for appointing him as a 'Licensed Surveyor' as envisaged under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In pursuance of the application filed by petitioner, his request has been considered and petitioner has been appointed as 'Licensed Surveyor' after undergoing compulsory training for three months and passing the necessary Examination conducted by the Survey Settlement Training Institute as per the relevant Rules. When petitioner was discharging his duties as 'Licensed Surveyor', the third respondent has issued the circular dated 15th May, 2002 in consona...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Shaila P. Prabu W/O. M.P. Prabhu Vs. Nagendra K. Mallya S/of K.N. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ694; 2007(4)KCCR2673
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel for both sides, the same is taken up for final hearing and, is being disposed off by this order.2. This revision petition in filed by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. praying that this Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 1.8.2007 passed by the XIX ACMM, Bangalore in C.C. No. 15062/2003 by issuing FLW and NBW against the petitioner.3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows. The petitioner being an accused before the trial court challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trail court in C.C. No. 15062/03, dated 1.8.07 which has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 1407/05. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the courts-below, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 1713/2006. Initially this Court granted interim stay and admitted the matter. Since the petitioner has not complied the order pa...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. M.S. Subbukrishna S/O. Late M. Suryanarayana and ors. Vs. Smt. Pa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ438
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005 in O.S. No. 7/2000 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Srirangapatna, partly decreeing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for partition.2. The appellants in R.F.A. No. 411/2006 were the defendants 2 to 9 before the trial Court, whereas the appellant in R.F.A. No. 596/2006 is the first defendant before the trial Court and whereas the first respondent in both the appeals was the plaintiff before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties in this judgment are referred to by their status before the trial Court.3. In filing the plaint, the plaintiff had contended that she and first defendant developed love towards each other and they were living together at one point of time. That subsequently on 06.01.1994 the plaintiff and first defendant got married at Sri. Lakshmi Narayana Temple, K.R. Pet town. That out of this wedlock between the plaintiff and first ...
Tag this Judgment!Teekappa S/O Fakirappa Kambli Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secret ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)AIRKarR281
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who retired as joint director of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Raichur with effect from 31-8-1995.2. It appears, subsequent to retirement, the government proposed to hold an enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner while he was in service and was working as joint director of the market committee at Raichur during the period between 14-9-1992 and 30-8-1995. This was sequel to certain audit report submitted on 8-5-2000 covering the periods 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and wherein the audit wing had noticed certain financial irregularities particularly, late remittance of some amount collected as market fee from the member participants or agriculturists by one Rachanna Gowda, sales assistant, who, it appears, had not promptly remitted the amount collected and for which he had issued receipts at the relevant time on the charge that the petitioner had not effectively supervised the functioning of such sales assistant a...
Tag this Judgment!Jigga Vs. State by R.F.O., Koppa Range
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR4321; 2008(3)KarLJ67
A.C. Kabbin, J.1. The point of law involved in this appeal is,Whether an accused can be convicted on the basis of evidence recorded in his absence when his appearance had not been dispensed with?2. This appeal is preferred by the accused No. 3 (in custody) in S.C. No. 16/2006 challenging his conviction and sentence. He had been prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. The prosecution allegation was that the appellant and other two accused were found by the RFO, Koppa Range (P.W. 6), forest guards (P.Ws. 4 and 5) and forester (P.W. 3) in the early hours of morning of 05-04-2005 cutting sandalwood tree in Jaipura forest. The prosecution claims that on seeing the forest officers, they took to their heels, but were apprehended by the forest officers. A case was registered against all the three accused. During investigation, other two accused were released on bail. It is stated that later they jumped bail and therefore the trial proceeded only...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudave and ors. Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary Government, Reven ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR4533; 2008(2)KarLJ666; 2007(6)AIRKarR559; 2008AIHC710(Kar)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of lands which was the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project along with the lands belonging to other owners.2. Petitioners did not oppose the acquisition. Final notifications came to be passed, award also came to be passed. They did not seek a reference claiming higher compensation. However, some of the land owners who were dis-satisfied with the amount awarded, sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (For short hereinafter referred to as 'L.A. Act'). One such case was LAC 469/00. The Civil Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat. In the Lok Adalat, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was modified and the compensation was enhanced and an award came to be passed on 20.2.2002. On coming to know of the said award where compensation was enhanced, these petitioners who had not sought reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, filed applications under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva S/O Hanamantappa Pattar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner and Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(4)Kar4533; 2007(4)KCCRSN292.
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of lands which was the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project along with the lands belonging to other owners.2. Petitioners did not oppose the acquisition. Final notifications came to be passed, award also came to be passed. They did not seek a reference claiming higher compensation. However, some of the land owners who were dis-satisfied with the amount awarded, sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (For short hereinafter referred to as 'L.A. Act'). One such, case was LAC 469/00. The Civil Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat. In the Lok Adalat, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was modified and the compensation was enhanced and an award came to be passed on 20.2.3002. On coming to know of the said award where compensation was enhanced, these petitioners who had not sought reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, filed applications under Se...
Tag this Judgment!S. Siddalingaswamy S/O Late A. Shivarudraiah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ519; 2007(6)AIRKarR62
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The matter has come up for orders on the application for vacating the interim order of stay granted by this Court on 19.7.2005, contending, inter alia, that it has held up the enquiry which otherwise could have been completed and that there was no reason to stay the order and the writ petition is not tenable etc.,.2. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that instead of passing orders on the application for vacating the interim order, the main matter could be heard and disposed of and accordingly the matter is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.3. Writ petition by a person who had been appointed as the Managing Director of M/s. HMT Watches Limited, a subsidiary of M/s HMT Limited, which is wholly owned by the Union of India.4. Petitioner was so appointed as on 31.10.2002 following the approval of the proposal for appointment of the petitioner for the post in terms of the proceedings of sub-committee of the Cabinet ...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Umashankar Vs. the Commissioner, Mysore Mahanagara Palike and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3810; 2008(1)KarLJ158
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by an employee of the respondent No. 1 - Mysore Mahanagara Palike who it appears had been prosecuted before the competent court under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and had been convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.2. It appears the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and the said appeal is now pending before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.571 of 2005. The sentence is suspended by this Court but the petitioner has been directed to pay the alternative of paying fine of Rs. 10,000/-.3. While the matter stood thus, it appears the Lokayukta at whose instance the petitioner had been prosecuted in the criminal side had called upon the respondent No. 1 - Palike to take consequential action on the petitioner on the departmental side.4. It is at this stage, the writ petitioner has approached this Court contending, inter alia, that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to issue such di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »