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.
Smt. Muninarasamma W/O Late Galiga @ Gali Hanuma Vs. the State of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR446; 2009(3)KarLJ667:2008(5)KCCR3471:2009(1)AIRKarR475:AIR2009NOC1074.
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the final notification issued by the respondent No. l bearing No. HVD 49 MNJ 78 dated 14.5.1980 in respect of lands bearing Sy. No. 97/2 situated at Challakere Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East, Bangalore.2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the property in question having purchased the same under a deed of sale dated 8.3.1944. It is further contended that he had sold the said property in favour of one Kurian Thomas under a deed of sale dated 24.1.1980. It is further contended that Kurian Thomas has executed a General Power of Attorney as per Annexure 'F' dated 28.1.1995 in respect of the said property in favour of the petitioner and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the date of the said Power of Attorney. It is further contended that since the respondents are trying to demolish the constructions made on the said lands, she has filed...
G.S. Prasanna Kumar Vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ174
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The above public interest litigation is filed for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 Boards namely, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board to identify and prescribe appropriate effluent treatment systems for respondents 6 to 23, taking into account the best available technologies including 'Zero Pollution Technology' and to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to issue closure notices to distilleries which do not have the 'Zero Pollution Technology' in place until respondents 1 and 3 identify and prescribe for distilleries the best available technologies and they are implemented.2. According to Sri B.K. Sampath Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioner, the 'Zero Pollution Technology' is more efficient in treatment of effluents and it can be set up by distilleries with equipments that are locally available, the Zero Pollution Technology is also called as 'Fermented Molasses Solubles (FMS) or condensed Mola...
Baswanthrao Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs. Rajkumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR1099
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a defendant's regular first appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and granted the relief of declaration that the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The subject matter of the suit is land bearing Sy. No. 26 measuring 22 acres, land bearing Sy. No. 27 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas and land bearing Sy. No. 27/Malai measuring 1 acre 31 guntas situated at Village Kouta, Aurad Taluk in Bidar District. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant who owns 500 acres of land in different villages including the suit land, for family necessity sold the suit land in favour of the grandfather of the plaintiff, namely Appa Rao during the year 1972 for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/-. The defendant is a close relative of the plaintiff and his grand father Apparao and therefore, no writ...
Huvakka Vs. Vishwanath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR3351
N. Kumar, J.1. This appeal is by the wife challenging the judgment and order passed by the Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce.2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the family Court.3. Petitioner-wife presented a petition under Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. The case of the petitioner is she married the respondent in the year 1986 in accordance with Hindu rites at Hole Alur town, Gadag; after marriage they led a happy marital life for one year since she was serving as nurse in Bijapur Govt. Hospital. Respondent was a permanent resident of Betegeri; he used to visit her to consummate their marriage; out of the wedlock, she delivered a male child namely Prahalad on 4.1.1988; the delivery was not normal and her health was not congenial for which she was taking treatment; unfortunately 12 days after the child was born, respondent's ...
C. Govindaraj Vs. Smt. Padmini
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Kant108; ILR2009KAR21; 2009(1)KarLJ23; 2008(5)KCCR3469; 2009(1)KLJ23; 2009(3)AIRKarR331.(D.B).
ORDER1. Registry has raised the objection regarding deficit Court fee to be paid.2. Both these appeals arise from the common judgment passed by the Family Court in the petitions filed under Sections 9 and 13(1)(i), (i-a), (i-b) and (1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the wife and husband respectively. The appellant in each of these cases has paid a Court fee of Rs. 15/- as per Schedule II, Article 1 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suite Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KCFSV Act').3. But, as per the office objection, Court fee is payable as per Schedule II, Article 1 of the KCFSV Act since, the appeal against the order passed under Section 9 or 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is provided under Section 28 of the said Act. As such, the office states that the appellant is liable to pay the Court fee of Rs. 100/- each as per Schedule II, Article 1 of the KCFSV Act.4. In this regard, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that, the appeals ar...
Gujarat Liqui Pharmacaps Private Limited Vs. the Secretary, Department ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ29; 2009(2)AIRKarR140
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner, questioning the correctness of the order impugned dated 23rd October, 2008 passed in Appeal No. HFW 105 HPC 2008 on the file of the first respondent-Appellate Authority vide Annexure-H, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to consider the technical bid and open the financial bid of the petitioner-company.2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner who is otherwise competent apart from being qualified to participate in the short term E tender dated 4th June, 2008 for supply of drugs and chemicals for the period of 2008-09, called by the second respondent herein, as per the tender rules, had submitted its tender and the bidders were required to submit their tenders in two covers, as it is, the technical bid containing the complete details pertaining to ...
H.A. Siddiqui S/O Late Shaik Dawood Vs. the State of Karnataka Represe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(9)KarLJ34
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us.2. Heard both sides.3. The Tahsildar, Heggadadevanakote - the 5th respondent by endorsement notification dated 29.07.2008 issued under Section 83(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 found that the petitioner is carrying on a resort in the revenue land bearing Sy. No. 32 of Gandathur Village, Heggadadevanakote Taluk to an extent of 3 acres is being used for a resort viz., non-agricultural purpose unauthorisedly and therefore locked and sealed the cottages therein and the same was challenged by the petitioner-appellant herein in Writ Petition No. 11893 of 2008.4.1. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner was in possession of the said 3 acres of land in Sy.No.32 of Gandathur Village, Heggadadevanakote Taluk even though the same admittedly belongs to the Government As an unauthorised occupant of the said land, the petitioner's wife filed an application on 14.04.1999 for regularising her occ...
Sri S.G. Lakshminarayana Naidu, Proprietor, Maruthi Inn Vs. Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ361:2009(1)KCCR761:2009(2)AIRKarR262:AIR2009Kar52(D.B).
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 35481/2001 is the appellant herein.2.1 The appellant is said to have obtained loan from the respondent - Karnataka State Financial Corporation ('Corporation' for short) to put up a hotel at Chitradurga. The loan amount of Rs. 15.00 lakhs was sanctioned to the appellant by the Corporation on 12.12.1992; additional term loan of Rs. 4.74 lakhs was sanctioned on 12.2.1992; and then second additional term loan of Rs. 14.50 lakhs was sanctioned on 27.4.1996. As the appellant committed default in repayment, action was taken against him for recovery of the outstanding loan, which ultimately culminated into a decree against him and consequential sale of the hotel by order dated 19.7.2001, whereunder the property was sold for Rs. 20.00 lakhs to the 3rd respondent. According to the appellant, he had an offer for Rs. 60.00 lakhs, however it was sold only for Rs. 20.00 lakhs as the property was auctioned by the respondents...
Veerappa and anr. Vs. Siddappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR3562
N. Kumar, J.1. This is claimant's appeal against the order of dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal.2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original proceedings.3. Claimants are the parents of one Ravindra @ Ravi who was working as Assistant Engineer in APMC, Sub-division Bijapurand earning Rs. 9,000/- P.M. On 26.6.2001, when he was riding his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. KA-29/H-6217 on Bagalkot-Navanagar road at 12.10 A.M. i.e. at midnight, he met with an accident. The case of the claimants is that one mini goods lorry bearing No. KA-28/5177 came from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, said Ravindra fell on the ground and sustained multiple fractures on his head and became unconscious. Mobile police who were on duty found his body, informed his family, and shifted him to Bagalkot hospital. From there, he was moved to Sh...
Smt. Mallamma W/O Malleshappa Vs. Channegowda S/O Ninge Gowda,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KCCRSN14:2009(4)AIRKarR21.
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This second appeal has a long history behind it. It dates back to the year 1955 when a suit was filed for declaration and possession and more than 53 yean have passed since then and still the plaintiff is litigating this case far possession of the suit properties, in regard to which, superior courts have declared more than once that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties, entitled to possession.2. Secondly, this cue also furnishes All example of how an order of a law tribunal can (sic) the successful plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of the decree.3. How an order pawed by a tribunal can have the effect of bringing to a halt .the judgments of the superior courts in another aspect, and finally this case also calls for an interpretation of Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and whether by the said provisions, the hands of the civil court can be tied, even when the question concerns the binding effect of the order of the L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›