Karnataka Court March 2008 Judgments

The Commissioner, Bangalore Devlopment Authority Vs. Addi Housing Indu ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant117; ILR2008KAR2506; 2008(4)KarLJ23; AIR2008Kar117; 2008(3)KCCR1305; 2008(3)AIRKarR179; 2008(4)CivilLJ697; 2008AIHC2429(Kar)(DB)

1. These appeals are directed against the common Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2004 in O.S. No. 1703/03 to 1707/2003 paved by the City civil Judge, Bangalore City partly decreeing the auto granting decree of permanent injunction.2. The Appellant in these appeals was the defendant and to respondents ware the plaintiffs before to Trial Court In this judgment to parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court3. As we see the subject matter in these appeals if 3 Acres 36 guntas in Sy. No. 10/3 of Gangenahalli (hereinafter for to salts of convenience called as 'schedule land'). As on 8.12.1977 to notified khatedars of to schedule land were Smt Byakka, Janakamma M.N. Ramasamy, S.V. Indiramma, K. Kamaraj, Honnamma and G.P. Padmavathamma On 16.3.1976 to defendants issued a notification under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short called as 'BDA Act') for acquisition of certain lands including to schedule land for formation of layout call...

K.L. Ramachandra and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary Depa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3146; 2008(6)KarLJ262; 2008(2)KCCR1171; 2008(4)AIRKarR153; AIR2008NOC2430

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by Decree-holders in Civil suits to enforce specific performance of the agreements of sale, calling in question the vires of Section 2(mm) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 for short 'Act', as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequential writ of certiorari to quash the notice issued under Section 45-A of the Act, relating to Under Valuation of the instrument of sale and recovery of stamp duty, to direct the respondents to release the Sale Deed, and for a direction that there is no under valuation though the escalation in the value of property is due to delay in litigation.2. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions, when presented, were supported by a decision of a Madras High Court reported in : AIR1997Mad296 where, in almost identical circumstances, the parties therein were extended the benefit of payment of stamp duty...

Dada Rao S/O Gyanoba Since Deceased by Lrs (Prabhavathi W/O. Venkat Ra ...

Court: Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This second appeal is by the sole defendant in O.S. No. 129/93 on the file of the Civil Judge, Basavakalyan, who has suffered a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit lands and being restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands by the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree has ultimately been affirmed by the lower appellate court in Regular Appeal No. 5/96 in terms of the judgment and decree dated 24.8.2001. Against these, the second appeal by the defendant.2. The second appeal is mainly canvassed on two questions of law which have been framed by this Court at the time of admission viz.,1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time?2) Whether the courts below were justified in holding that the sale made in favour of appellant under Exs.Dl and D2 were for legal necessity?and contentions revolving around these questions.3. The brief facts l...

M.S. Vishwanath Vs. the Deputy Commissioner for Transports, Bangalore ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ198; 2008(3)KCCR1717; 2008(4)AIRKarR106; AIR2008NOC2388; 2008AIHC2773(Kar)

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, questioning the correctness of the endorsement dated 6th February, 2004 bearing No. RTO/BNG/TR/SR/AKA-01/A-1919 and the notice of demand dated 16th September, 2004 marked under Annexure-A and B and the order dated 21st April, 2004 of the first respondent passed in Taxation Appeal No. 65 of 2004 marked under Annexure-F, has presented the instant writ petition. Further petitioner has sought to grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit to pass, in the interest of justice and equity.2. Petitioner in this petition is a registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-01/A-1919 and the said vehicle is covered under a stage carriage permit under lease agreement under Permit No. P.St.P. 5/97-98 to operate on the route Santhepete to Bangalore and back and that, petitioner has paid the tax upto 31st January, 2004. It is the case of petitioner that, since the vehicle required a major repair and same could not be operated on any publ...

Hydersab Abdulnabi Maniyar Since Deceased by His Lrs. (Smt. Mariambi, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)AIRKarR500

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The above three appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 28.10.1988 rendered in common in Regular Appeal Nos. 47/87, 42/87, 43/87 and 44/87 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum.2. By the common judgment the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed all the four appeals and apart from these three second appeals, one more second appeal-RSA No. 90/89 had also been filed before this Court. However, it is a common ground of the parties in these appeals that RSA 90/89 had come to be dismissed as having been abated and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff in the suit has also been executed and nothing survives in that second appeal.3. The origin of all the three appeals can be traced as under:All these second appeals arise out of the Judgment rendered in common by the court of the Principal Munsiff, Belgaum at Belgaum in respect of OS No. 369 of 1980, OS No. 378 of 1980, OS No. 380 of 1980 and OS No. 381 ...