Karnataka Court November 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.
A. Janardhan Shetty, S/O. Late Sankappa Shetty and ors. Rep. by Gpa Ho ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR2159
1. These appeals are filed by the appellants-petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP. No. 23987/2005 along with connected writ petitions.2. The appellant-petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing Sy. No. 76/1 of Nagawara Village. They are challenging the notifications bearing Nos. CI.88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 3(1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter called as KIAD Act) bearing No. CI/88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 28(1) No. CI.88 SPQ 2005 dated 30.4.2005 issued under Section 28(4) No. CI 309 SPQ 2005 dated 24.9.2005 issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act' to declare the area comprised in Sy. No. 76/1 of Nagawara Village as an Industrial Area and also for acquiring the land in question for the purpose of Industrial Estate is illegal, as the same is in contravention of KIAD Act, Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, Karnataka Town and Country...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Develo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ102
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11-11-2005 passed by learned Single Judge, by which, W.P. No. 3264 of 2004 (Aravind and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Dharwad and Anr. 2006(3) Kar. L.J. 403) was allowed, the impugned communication therein was quashed and a direction was issued to pass an order as provided under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('L.A. Act' for short) and grant benefit of the award as per Annexure-K to the petition. Appellant was the 1st respondent in writ petition. Respondents 2 to 5 herein were the writ petitioners. Respondent 1 herein was respondent 2 in the writ petition.2. This appeal illustrate a classic example as to how appellant and other concerned authorities subjugated the rights of villagers who consented for their agricultural land being acquired for development by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, the possession of which was taken decades back, b...
Smt. Gangamma W/O Late Sanjeevaiah and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissione ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ218; (2)KCCR952; 2009(4)AIRKarR181; AIR2009NOC2393(D.B)
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 14216 of 2005 are the appellants herein. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Sanjeevaiah who had purchased the agricultural land to an extent of 5 acres located in Sy. No. 1/1 in Nagegowdana Byala, Turuvekerc Taluk, Tumkur District from one Mudlaiah s/o Kempaiah a member of the Scheduled Caste in whose favour the said lands were granted by proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner in No. DD/Dis/1240/54-55 dated 09.01.1956 under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act), 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on condition that the granted land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grant. That apart Section 4 of the Act also imposed a prohibition of transfer of the granted lands and the same reads as follows:4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands: (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agree...
Syed Yusuff S/O Late Syed Abdul Rahimsab Vs. Fathimabi W/O Syed Yusuff
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR510:2009(1)KCCR824:2009(2)AIRKarR1:AIR2009NOC1169.
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. This second appeal is against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.11.96 passed by Principal Munsiff, Kola-in O.S. No. 523/90 which was affirmed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kolar in R.A. No. 1/97 dated 03.02.03.2. Appellant is the original defendant. Respondent is the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred hereinafter with reference to their rank in the suit.3. Facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:Plaintiff and defendant are the wife and husband. Defendant was the owner of plaint schedule property. He had executed in favour of plaintiff, a Mahar deed, dated 30.12.87, which was registered. Plaintiff and defendant have amongst them three children. Disharmony having come into existence, plaintiff and defendant are living separately. Defendant had instituted O.S. No. 584/89 on the file of Munsiff, Kolar, against plaintiff for decree of declaration of title and for permanent Injunction in respect of suit...
Genu @ Ganu and ors. Vs. Jalabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR612;
N. Kumar, J.1. This is defendants appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession and perpetual injunction.2. The case of plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff is legally wedded wife of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are the children ' born to them. The 1st defendant has deserted the plaintiffs. The 1st plaintiff performed the marriages of plaintiffs No.2 to 4 by raising loan from private persons. The 1st plaintiff is indebted to creditors. The 1st defendant agreed to make payment of the loan amount to discharge the said loan. Now he has changed his attitude and failed to repay the amount to the creditors.3. The 1st defendant has married one, Sharadabai. She is the second wife to the 1st defendant. He entered into second marriage without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. Now the 1st defendant is completely under the control and guidance of his second wife, Sharadabai. Th...
Mallikarjun and ors. Vs. Shivasharanappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KCCR1280
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court which has modified the shares allotted by the trial Court in a suit partition filed by them.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of plaintiff No.3 who is the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 is the second wife of defendant No.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons born to the first defendant through defendant No.4. The plaintiff's case is that, Sy. No. 177 measuring 8 acres 39 guntas, Sy. No. 177/2 measuring 8 acres 39 guntas, Sy. No. 182/2/1 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas, Sy. No. 182/2/2 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas and Sy. No. 182/3/2 measuring 4 acres 34 guntas, all situated at Kusnoor Village, are ancestral properties. Sy. No. 193 measuring 13 acres of Kusnoor Village was granted to defendant No.1 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as he being the elde...
United India Insurance Company Limited Rep. by the Manager Regional Of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1113:2009(2)KCCR969:2009(2)AIRKarR305
N.K. Patil, J.1. Appellant in all these appeals is United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 18th July 2006 passed in M.V.C. Nos. 5789/2003, 5647/2003 and 5648/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-2), common appellant has presented the instant Miscellaneous First Appeals, only in so far as it relates to fixing the liability on the appellant - United India Company at the rate of 40% as per the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, on the ground that, there is no liability as such in respect of the goods carriage vehicle for compensating the passengers.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimants along with few others were travelling on 7 July 2003 in a lorry bearing No. KA-05/B-2889 in order to visit the temple at Chitamani Road, Bangalore. But, unfortunately, on the way, there was an accident involving the lorry in which the claimants were travelling with anothe...
S.K. JaIn S/O. Bhim Sen Jain, Director of Mavaveer Transport Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(9)KarLJ125
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, questioning the correctness of the proceedings against the petitioner in CC.No 322/2006 on the file of the Court of JMFC, Indi Bijapur District and consequently also for quashing the charge sheet dated 25th May 2006 filed by respondents 2 and 3 in Crime No. 19/2006 vide Annexures A and B, has presented the instant writ petition.2. Facts in brief are that, the second and third respondents herein have registered a case in Crime No. 19/2006 on 4th March 2006 on the complaint lodged by one Sri. Munish Kumar Pandit stating that, on 4th March 2006, at about 1 P.M. when he was running the motor lorry bearing No. HR-47/5733 from Chadachan towards Pandarapura when the vehicle was near the sales tax check post, the driver of the lorry No. HR-55/4347 has caused the accident and the said complaint was registered against the driver of the lorry bearing No. HR-47/5733 under Section 279, 304-A IPC read with Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is the further cas...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Pushpalatha W/O Kumar,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)KarLJ744:2009(1)KCCR347
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition is United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 18th July 2006 passed in M V C No 5649/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-2), petitioner has presented the instant writ petition, only in so far as it relates to fixing the liability on as per the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, on the ground that, there is no liability as such in respect of the goods carriage vehicle for compensating the passengers.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimants along with few others were travelling on 7th July 2003 in a lorry bearing No. KA-05/B-2889 in order to visit the temple at Chitamani Road, Bangalore. But, unfortunately, on the way, there was an accident involving the lorry in which the claimants were travelling with another lorry bearing No. KA-O5/AB-5999 coming from the opposite direction. Thus, as a result of the said ...
Emaculate Conception Church Rep by Its Gpa Holder Rt. Rev Msgr, T. Jab ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ260
ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2964/94. The suit is tiled for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit, schedule property i.e., Sy. No. 154/11 measuring 7 acres 32 guntas in Doreswainy Palya, Begur Hobli, Bilekanahalli Dhakle, Bangalore South Taluk. Further prayer is also made to declare the grant made in favour of defendants No, 1 and 2 i.e., 2 acres 32 guntas and 5 acres respectively as null and void. The said grant is made by the Government. As such the defendants No. 3 and 4 were subsequently impleaded by amending the cause title to the plaint. The defendants, including defendants No. 3 and 4 filed their written statement. Subsequently, in the pending suit, the defendants No. 3 and 4 tiled an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking leave to amend their written statement. The application was registered as I,A. No. 8. The plaintiffs filed their objections to the same.2. The trial Court after considering the rival con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »