Karnataka Court March 2008 Judgments

Smt. N.S. Geetha W/O Sri H.R. Sudarshan Prasad Vs. Sri B. Raghuveer S/ ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ169; ILR2008(3)Kar3850; 2008(4)KCCR2492; 2008(6)AIRKarR194

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. This writ petition by the decree holder is directed against an interlocutory order dated 15.12.2007 (Annexure-A) passed by the Executing Court - the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Execution Case No. 1697/2007. By the impugned order, the Executing Court, in exercise of the power under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (the Stamp Act), has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 73,788/- towards duty and penalty on the settlement agreement dated 24.11.2000 (Annexure-B) effected as per Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Arbitration Act').2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order at Annexure-A.3. The question of law that mils for determination in this petition is as to whether a settlement agreement effected as per Section 73 of the Arbitration Act attracts duty under the provisions of the Stamp Act?It is stated that the parties had arrived at a settlement rela...

Sri. G.K.S. Shankar Vs. Smt. Puttarevamma and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR2790; 2008(3)KCCR2067; 2008(5)AIRKarR228; AIR2008Kar173

1. This writ petition by the plaintiff is directed against an interlocutory order dated 23.1.2008 passed by the trial court - the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Da), Kunigal in the suit in O.S.No.2S7/2006. By the impugned order, the trial court has allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order Xm rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure {'the CPC) for impounding of the document dated 06.11.2004 (not admitted in evidence) on the ground that it does not bear the proper stamp duty it has also dismissed the plaintiffs application filed for return of the said document. 2. I have heard Suit. Prathima Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N.Shlyanna, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order at Annexure-Q. 3. It is not in dispute that the document dated 06.11.2004 referred to above does not bear the proper stamp duty. To examine as to whether such a document is liable to be impounded, it is relevant to refer to Section 33 of the Karo...

Smt. Muniyamma and anr. Vs. S. Chandrakar and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR2863; 2008(3)KCCR1576; 2008(4)AIRKarR360; AIR2008NOC2492; 2008AIHC2981(Kar)

ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioners, who are defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in O.S.3669/ 2002, pending on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, have questioned in this writ petition the order dated 19.1.2006, whereby I.A.4 filed by them for amendment of the written statement was rejected. 1st respondent herein, is the plaintiff who has instituted the said suit, against the petitioners and the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ petition.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners filed a memo producing a copy of the order dated 22.7.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Committee No. III of the Karnataka State Bar Council in DCE No. 75/2006 i.e., on the complaint lodged by the 2nd petitioner herein, against his previous advocate 'x' (real name not mentioned). Since the order produced along with the memo has a direct bearing for the decision making in this writ petition, after hearing the learned Counsel appearin...

Shivappa Alagawadi S/O Sri Tokappa and Vs. the Registrar General, High ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ137; 2008(4)KCCR2494; 2008(6)AIRKarR214

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioners are Ex-Servicemen. They applied for the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) in response to Annexure-J Notification dated 1st April 2006. Though they appeared in the written examination, they could not secure the minimum marks required under Rule-5(II)(1)(a)(c). The petitioners do not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and hence they were required to secure at least 40 marks in each paper in the written examination. Admittedly, the petitioners did not secure 40 marks in each paper of the written examination and hence they were not called for viva voce. The petitioners claim to have submitted Annexures - G and H representations to the 1st respondent praying that they may be called for viva voce. Since there is no favourable reply to the said representations, they have filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Annexures - G and H representations and to call them for viva voce.2. The petitioners rel...

Santhosh Moolya and anr. Vs. the State Through Police Circle Inspector

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3334; 2008(6)KLJ499; 2008(4)AIRKarR242

V. Jagannathan, J.1. The two sisters (both victims of rape), who were working in the quarry of one Subhash Jain and being the residents of Badaga Mijaru Village, Ashwathapura Santhekatte, on 2-6-2004, after completing their work, were waiting for the bus near Sampige of Puttige Village by the side of the road to go to their place and it was around 6.00 p. m. and at that time, the appellants herein came there in an auto rickshaw which was driven by A-1 Santhosh Moolya and the auto stopped in front of the two sisters and then, A-1 called the two sisters to get into the auto as the two accused were going towards Ashwathapura side. Accordingly, both the sisters sat in the auto and A-2 Surendra Gowda sat by their side and A-1 was driving the auto rickshaw. There was rain coming at that time and the auto rickshaw was taken towards a lonely place after leaving the main road and moved in the kachcha road. The two sisters, out of fear, asked the two accused as to where the auto was being taken....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Konkan Marine Agencies

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Kar)467; 2009[13]STR7; [2009]18STT115; (2009)22VST52(Karn)

Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri C. Shashikantha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, on admission. Records perused.2. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35-G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as the 'Act') against the order dated 6-8-2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short 'CESTAT') in assessee's Appeal No. S.T/75/2007.Assessee had filed appeal against the order in revision dated 20-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore.3. Facts which lie in narrow compass, are as under:For the period commencing from March, 2004 to September, 2004, assessee had paid service tax and interest amounting to Rs. 4,79,397/- under different challans under the category of 'port service'. The assessee had filed a refund claim for refund of service tax and interest paid for the aforesaid period and for the aforesaid amount. The reasons for assessee's claim for ...

Seetharama Narayan Hegde (Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.) Vs. Venk ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This second appeal is by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 26/1972 on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Kumta, which suit was decreed by the trial Court not once but twice. Once earlier the Lower Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the trial Court and it has been affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court in the second round of first appeal by the 1st defendant and to get over this decree, the present second appeal.2. Suit is one for separate possession of 1/9th share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties, which were described to be joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and three other members, who did not figure as defendants in the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 who are described as the purchasers of shares of two other members of the family viz., one Mahabaleshwar Ganapathi Shet and Manjunath Ganapathi Shet have been arrayed as defendants for the reason that the shares of those members of the family who it was conceded have sold thei...

Smt. Nanjamma Vs. Smt. Akkayamma and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant102; ILR2008KAR1420; 2008(4)KarLJ177; 2008(2)KCCR886; 2008(3)AIRKarR62; AIR2008Kar102(DB)

S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. In this appeal, Scrutiny Branch has raised objection regarding deficiency of Court-fee paid by the appellant on the memorandum of appeal and as the appellant took exception to the objections, the matter was placed before the Court.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record.3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to note the brief facts giving rise to the present appeal.4. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the O.S. No. 5085/2001 against the respondents for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule properties, on the ground that the properties were self acquired properties of her deceased father Shri Bachappa. It was contended that said Shri Bachappa died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff along with three sisters and two brothers. It was contended that as there was no partition and inspite of repeated requests and demand, the brothers have denied the share and she is forced to file the suit. I...

Sri Yellappa Basvani Tashildar Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3319; 2008(6)KarLJ650; 2008(4)KCCRSN326; 2008(5)AIRKarR245; AIR2008NOC2879

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In these two writ petitions common questions of fact and law are raised. Hence, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The challenge made by the petitioners is directed against the order passed by the State Government holding that the petitioners herein were guilty of misconduct in the discharge of their duties as Member and Adhyaksha respectively of the Taluka Panchayath, Belgaum, Belgaum District and their consequential removal from the said posts. Though the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are passed separately, the nature of the allegations made and the nature of enquiry held is similar, hence it is felt appropriate to dispose of these cases together.3. The facts leading to these writ petitions, stated in nutshell are, that the petitioner in W.P. No. 12061/2006 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 12062/2006 were elected as Members of the Taluk Panchayath, Belgaum for a period of 5 years in the elections held on 27...

Honnappa and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ217

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition arises in the background of the provisions of Sections 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 etc., in Chapter IV of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act').2. Writ petitioners are incidentally beneficiaries of the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 77 of the Act, which provides for disposal of surplus lands vested in the State in favour of landless persons belonging to SC/ST community subject to certain conditions.3. Petitioners, four in number, became beneficiaries of and one such grant order dated 20-1-1977, said to have been passed by the Land Tribunal, Sedam as a sequel to its order dated 11-10-1976, by which the Tribunal had determined a surplus holding of about 175 acres 15 guntas of land as a result of its proceedings in No. LRY/DEC/553/74-75 etc. While passing the order in these four cases, the Tribunal, it appears, clubbed together the declarations filed by one Syed Barker Hussain with the declarations filed by his k...