Karnataka Court October 2008 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. Rekha D. Shetty W/O D.M. Shetty Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ448:2009(4)KCCR2500:2009(3)AIRKarR438:AIR2009NOC1870(D.B
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner-appellant has preferred the above appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.7.2008 passed in Writ petition No. 12556/2007 disposing of the writ petition, wherein the appellant-writ petitioner had sought to quash the preliminary notification dated 3.10.2006 issued under Section 17 read with Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 17) as amended by Karnataka Act 33/1991 (for short, the Act) issued by the 2nd Respondent-Deputy Commissioner and declaration under Section 17(1) read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued by Respondent No. 1, proposing to acquire 6 cents in Sy. No. 53/1A-1 belonging to the appellant for the public purpose of putting up a wet well for pumping the drainage in Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada district, under ADB scheme to be implemented by the 4th respondent.2.1 The case of the appellant is that she is the owner and in possession of the property situate in Kod...
Y.K. Suresh Kumar Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ83
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The appellant is the writ petitioner who lost the battle before the learned Single Judge in challenging the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner in proceedings dated 3-8-2007 wherein the Special Deputy Commissioner reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division changing the mutation of the records but recorded the name of the appellant-writ petitioner in the mutation of the records with regard to an extent of 1 acre and 28 guntas in Sy. No. 38/3 situated at Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk.2.1 The common case of contesting parties was that the impugned land belongs to the original landowner one Sri Channarayappa and then inherited by his son Sonnappa who is the grandfather of the petitioner. But in the year 1993 by proceedings dated 18-12-1993 of the Tahsildar the name of Sri Kakol Kempanna S/o. Sonnappa was deleted, but on the other hand the contesting respondent's forefather whose name...
Mrs. Manaoranjitham Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ130
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Writ Appeal No. 784 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 7-3-2008 wherein the appellant, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26068 of 2005 before the learned Single Judge sought to challenge the preliminary notification dated 29-1-2003 and the final notification dated 5-7-2003 issued in land acquisition proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent herein. Similarly, appellant in Writ Appeal No. 781 of 2008 had preferred Writ Petition No. 26064 of 2005 challenging the very same acquisition proceedings in respect of his property.2. It is true that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent has already culminated in an order in Writ Appeal No. 72 of 2004 and connected matters before this Court which was also subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3492 to 3494 of 2005 and connected matters by order dated 20-4-2006 State of Karnataka and Anr. v. All India Manufacturers Organisation and Ors. : AIR2006SC1846 ....
Smt. Sumathi Sadashivayya W/O Sri M. Sadashivayya Vs. Lord Krishna Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KCCRSN48; 2009(1)KLJ263; 2009(1)AIRKarR341; AIR2009NOC691
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned notice dated 16th June 2006 bearing No. B.Dis.MAG(2)CR 46/2006-07C4 vide Annexure D issued by third respondent, has presented the instant writ petition.2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner herein claims that, she is the tenant/lessee in respect of the schedule property under the lease agreement dated 20th October 2004 entered into with second respondent for a period of three years. Since then, petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said premises as tenant/lessee. It is the case of petitioner that, she learnt that, the second respondent had availed loan from the first respondent - Bank and other financial institutions. Due to default in payment of loan sanctioned by first respondent, the first respondent has issued notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(3) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short 'SARFAESI Act'...
Officers Tailoring House, a Partnership Firm Represented by Its Partne ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)AIRKarR156
K. Ramanna, J.1. The appellant - Officers Tailoring House, represented by its partner and authorized signatory Sri Rajaguru Vittal Thamre has come up with this appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 27 February 2002 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal and ESI court, Bangalore, in E.S.I. application No. 52 of 99, whereby the said court dismissed the application of the appellant and seeking to allow the said application.2. The case of the appellant in brief is that it is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of tailoring, it has not employed more than 7 persons at any point of time, there are two more establishments situated in the same premises, one Officers Wear Depot and another is Shivabakshwari Silks. The Shivabaleshwari Silks is situated in Mazanine floor and Officers Wear Depot is situated in front portion, whereas the tailoring house situated in the back portion. All the three establishments are independent and they have got separate entrance. It is fur...
G.S. Chikkamadaiah S/O Siddaiah Vs. T. Venkatesh S/O B. Thimmaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ117:2009(3)AIRKarR133:AIR2009NOC2194.
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant before the trial court and he is aggrieved by the lower appellate court allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit for specific performance.2. The facts which are not in dispute briefly stated are that the respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement with the appellant herein on 21.12.1992 by which the appellant had agreed to sell his property bearing Sy. No. 469/2B measuring 2 guntas for Rs. 50,000/- and out of which appellant received Rs. 10,000/- as advance and agreed to execute the regular sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/- at the time of registration. No tune was stipulated under the sale agreement is also an undisputed fact. It is the plaintiffs case that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and in this regard he approached the defendant several times and requested him to execute the sale deed by receiving the ba...
The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer (Tds) Vs. Or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Kar)102; ILR2009KAR1340; [2009]315ITR102(KAR); [2009]315ITR102(Karn); [2009]183TAXMAN186(Kar)
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent (Insurance Company), pursuant to the award made under the M.V. Act has paid compensation to the victim of Motor vehicle Accident. The award amount consisted of the compensation and interest liability.2. The provisions of Section 194(A)(3)(ix) mandates that when the respondent pays interest liability more than Rs. 50,000/-, it should deduct TDS to an extent of 10.3% of the interest component. In default, the respondent becomes liable to pay the said amount to the revenue Under Section 201 of the I.T. Act with interest and penalty.3. The respondent failed to deduct and remit the TDS amount to the revenue. The A.O. issued notice to the respondent, after enquiry found that the respondent has violated the mandate of Section 194(A). Hence, directed the company to deposit the TDS amount with interest on the TDS amount.4. The C.I.T. in appeal confirmed the order of the A.O. The Appellate Tribunal in appeal at the instance of the respondent partly allowed th...
Renuka Agencies and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ242; 2009(2)AIRKarR149(D.B).
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 13588 of 2007 being aggrieved by the order dated 25-9-2008, wherein the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the resolution passed by the third respondent-Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short, 'APMC'), Davanagere, dated 2-8-2007 and the consequential notices dated 27-8-2007.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties in the writ petition are as follows.-W.P. No. 13588 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners seeking for quashing of the resolution dated 2-8-2007 and the consequential notices dated 27-8-2007, wherein the petitioners have been asked to vacate the premises in their occupation and shift to the main market yard for conducting their business in areca nuts. It is the case of the petitioners that areca nut was declared as a notified commodity and respondent 3-APMC, by virtue of power vested under Section 6 of the Karnataka...
Mahadeva S/O Late Puttamadaiah Vs. Vasantha Kumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR356; 2009(2KarLJ651; 2009(1)KCCR386; 2009(3)AIRKarR164; AIR2009NOC2114
ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the tenant being aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mysore in HRC. No. 24/2007 as well as the order dated 17.6.2008 passed in Rent Revision Petition No. 67/2007 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge, Mysore, under which the petition filed under Section 27(2)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Act filed by the respondent was allowed and the said order was confirmed by the first revisional court2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord had filed a petition under Section 27(2)(i) of the act requiring the eviction of the premises by the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the schedule property was in a dilapidated condition and the Mysore City Corporation, Mysore had ordered demolition of the said building by permission letter dated 29.1.2007 and therefore, the same was required to be demolished immediately. It was also stated that earlier HRC. No. 226/1990 was...
Manjappa (Dead) by His L.R. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ147:2009(2)AIRKarR233:AIR2009NOC1308(D.B).
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two appeals are taken up for final hearing with the consent of the Counsel appearing for the parties and disposed of by this common order as they are interconnected.2. Manjappa, son of Huchoobappa, resident of Chiradoni Village, Chanagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, is the owner of the land measuring 3 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 62 situate at Hirekurabarahalli Village, Chennagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. Earlier, Chennagiri Taluk was in Shimoga District and after formation of Davanagere District, it has come within the newly formed Davanagere District. The said land was purchased by Manjappa, the father of the appellant-Basamma under the registered sale deed dated 1-5-1967 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- from B. Nagappa, son of Gangappa, and since the date of the said sale deed, Manjappa was in possession and enjoyment of the said land and was paying taxes in respect of the land and khata was also in his name. Respondent 4-Parashuramappa, son of Nag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »