Karnataka Court May 2008 Judgments
Subray Krishnaiah Hegde and ors. Vs. the Manager, Siddapur Taluk Vakka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ643; 2008(3)KCCR1842; 2008(5)AIRKarR230; AIR2008NOC2535
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is to get over the adverse order the legal heirs of judgment debtor suffered at the hands of the executing court in their effort to avoid execution of award passed by the arbitrator under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, the Act), as the learned judge of the executing court under the impugned order held that the execution petition was not barred by limitation as contended by the judgment debtor.2. The petitioners, who are legal heirs of the original judgment debtor, who was a member of the decree holder-society and it appears had borrowed some amount for agricultural operations, having foiled to pay the amount, the society raised a dispute and the matter being referred to arbitrator by the registrar, got an award in its favour in CEP 2/1974-75 dated 31-8-1974.3. The judgment debtor, it appears, had preferred an appeal against this award ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri V. Nagaraj S/O R. Venkatappa and Vs. the State of Karnataka, Reve ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ126; 2008(3)KCCR2076
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the order dated 23.02.1979 passed by the 2nd respondent - Land Tribunal in case No. LRF(THA)113/1975-76 in respect of the land measuring 03 acres 20 guntas in Survey No. 163 of Yalachaguppe Village, Tavarekere Hobli Bangalore South Taluk vide Annexure-C and consequently to hold that the alienation made in favour of the respondents-9 to 11 by respondents-4 to 8 are inconsequential, have presented this writ petition.2. Petitioners are claiming that they are lineal descendents of the family of Late Shri. Rangaiah. The father of the second petitioner and grandfather of the first petitioner purchased the agricultural land measuring 06 acres 10 guntas including 0.09 guntas phut kharab in Sy.No. 163 of Yaiachaguppe village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and during his life time he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. Be that as it may. Shri Rangiah died on 20.2.1987 leaving behind the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Vs. M. Subramani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ581; 2008(4)KCCR2326; 2008(5)AIRKarR345; AIR2008NOC2825
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful tenant to set aside the order dated 5-10-2005 passed by the II Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC No. 1059 of 2000.2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/landlord had filed the eviction petition against the revision petitioner herein under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 which came to be considered under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant, on the ground of requirement of the petition schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation, the said eviction petition was resisted by the revision petitioner before the Court below, the Court below after considering the case of the parties and the evidence placed on record, passed the order under challenge, allowing the said eviction petition filed by the respondent herein, granting 3 months time to the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate and hand ove...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gowramma W/O Sri Puttaiah @ Kengaiah and Sri Puttaiah @ Kengaiah ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ130; 2008(5)AIRKarR170; AIR2008NOC258
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioners have come up with this revision under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure to set aside the impugned order dated 6.9.2004 passed by the Prl. District Judge, Mysore in Rent Revision No. 99/2002 whereby the learned District Judge affirmed the order dated 14.11.2002 passed by the II Addl. I civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mysore in HRC No. 448/1984 dismissing the eviction petition filed by them.2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 smt. Gowramma is the daughter of late Sri Bank Boregowda and his wife late Scat. Lakshamma. During the lifetime of late Sri Bank Boregowda, father of petitioner No. l, he bequeathed all his properties to his wife late Smt. Lakshamma under a registered will Ex.p-1 dated 10.1.1958 wherein it is made clear that she should enjoy the property and the income therefrom during her lifetime and also directed that his children including petitioner No. 1 are entitled for partition of th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. G. Rathnavati Rao and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ133
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 29-9-1981 vide proceedings bearing No. TNC LRY 77-271 TRI-3728:76-77; vide Annexure-D passed by the first respondent and praying to declare that, the sale effected by the legal heirs of the second respondent and the 3rd and 4th respondents in favour of the 5th respondent vide sale deed dated 19-2-1997 vide Annexure-E is null and void ab initio and that, the respondents have no right, title and interest in the lands bearing Nos. 230/1A and 231/11A of Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District (now Udupi Districts), in the interest of justice and equity, have presented the instant writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, one Saraswathamma instituted O.S. Nos. 185 of 1964 and 145 of 1965 against one U.B. Pattabhi Rama Rao, for recovery of maintenance. The said suits came to be decreed and confirmed in R.A. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1966 respectively, filed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Pista Bai W/O Late H. Bhavarlal and ors. Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Pali ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)KCCR2892
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Since common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.2. The parties to the petitions and the facts, except the reliefs, are common.A) In WP 18272 of 2005 the petitioners seek a direction to:a) implement the orders dtd. 31.8.95 Annexure - G & 18.12.2005 Anx-H;b) produce the file pertaining to the legal opinion over the unauthorised occupation of the petition schedule premises by the 3rd respondent;c) act on the petitioners' representations dtd. 4.1.99 and 3.7.2001 Annexure-K & L and issue a government Order;d) direct the 1st respondent to register the katha of the petition schedule premises in the name of the petitioners; ande) All such other reliefs.B) In WP 24104/2005 the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent - Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to demolish the unauthorised construction a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Electronic Research Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-2008
Reported in: 2008[11]STR337
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Accepting the reasons stated in the Affidavit and in view of the law laid down in : AIR2000SC2306 allowed and the delay of 108 days in filing this appeal is condoned.2. The matter is taken-up for admission and heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. We need not go into the merits of this case in view of the fact that the demand notice was served on the assessee on 18-9-2001. As per Section 117 of Finance Act, 2000 the action taken would be validated. The said act received assent of President on 12-5.2005 and only from that date the same is effective. In : 1999ECR53(SC) (Lagu Udyog case) it is held that the provisions of Rule 2(d)(1)(xvii)(sic) [Rule 2(1)(d)(xvii) of the Rules are ultra vires of Finance Act and the Apex Court directed the department to refund the Service tax collected from the assesses. The Apex Court struck down Rule 17 of the Rules holding that the users of service are not liable to pay Service tax and the service provider has to pay the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Geetha W/O K.B. Chowdaiah Vs. G.K. Subrahmanya Since Deceased by Lr.,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1132; ILR2008KAR4112; 2008(5)AIRKarR139; AIR2008NOC2462;
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. Common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision-making, hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeals are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.2. The claimants-injured aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 9-7-2001 in M.V.C. Nos. 258/2000 to 265/2000 of the Prl. District Judge & MACT, Mandya (for short 'MACT'), have preferred M.F.As. 8242 to 8249/2004 respectively, for enhancement of compensation and to fasten the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation.3. The insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 5-8-2004 in M.V.C. No. 2/2003 of the Civil Judge (SR DN.) & AMACT, Channarayapatna, (for short 'MACT') in so far as it relates to fastening of liability to pay the compensation, has preferred M.F.A. No. 8647/2004.4. M.F.A. 5184/2005 is filed by the insurer of the offending motor vehicle calling in question the judgment and award dated 19...
Tag this Judgment!V. Eshwaran S/O Late V.D. Vedanantha Achari Vs. Karnataka Rajya Kaigar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ696
ORDERB.V. Nagarathan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged order dt.29.2.2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in Revision Petition No. 51/2007 (Annexure-T) reversing the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 13.2.2007 (Annexure-S) and Enquiry Report dated 12.5.2006 submitted by the Enquiry Officer as per Annexure-L.2. The petitioner is an employee of respondent -bank which is a registered co-operative bank under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, and was appointed as Second Division clerk on 4.5.1970 and promoted as First Division Clerk on 22.5.1976.3. According to petitioner, while he was working as In-Charge Superintendent of Accounts and Finance Section at Head Office, a show cause notice dated 16.4.2005 was issued to him and the Manager, Accountant and Clerk of the Mangalore Branch as per Annexure-F, which was replied by the petitioner vide Annexure-G. Thereafter, respondent bank had issued charge sheet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›