Karnataka Court June 2008 Judgments

Smt. Nasreen Banu W/O Late Syed Maksood Alum and ors. Vs. the Division ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009ACJ1906; ILR2009KAR385:2009(1)KCCR810:2009(2)AIRKarR23:AIR2009NOC1111(D.B)

Manjula Chellur, J.1. MFA No. 492/07 is filed by the legal representatives of pillion rider of a motorcycle by name Syed Maksood Alum, who died in a motor accident, pertaining to MVC No. 81/05.2. MFA No. 9616/06 is filed by the insurer of the lorry questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to the dependants and LRs of the rider of motorcycle by name Mohd. Yunus. They have also taken up the contention that the driver of the lorry alone was not responsible for the accident but the rider of the motorcycle as well contributed negligence for the occurrence of the accident.3. The facts that led to filing of these two appeals, in brief, are as under:On 1.10.2004. both the rider and pillion rider Mr Mohd Yunus and Syed Maksood Alum were proceeding at about 7 or 7.30 pm on a motorcycle bearing No. KA-37/L-7227 on NH 63 from Gadag to Koppal. According to the claimants, a truck bearing No. GA-02/U-5103 was proceeding ahead of the motor vehicle. It is alleged that the rider of the motorcycle...

Smt. O.K. Devaki and anr. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3395; 2008(6)KarLJ33; ILR2008(3)Kar3395; 2008(6)KLJ33; 2008(3)KCCR1975; 2008(5)AIRKarR233; AIR2008NOC2523(DB)

ORDERDeepak Verma, J.1. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned senior counsel with Sri. D. Vijayakumar appeared for the petitioners and Sri. Shohit H. Shetty, learned Counsel appeared for respondent No. 1 and Sri. H.S. Lingaraj, learned Counsel appeared for respondent No. 2. Arguments heard. Record perused.2. The case has a long and chequered history, but to deal with the same, it is not required to give unnecessary details. However, short details of the case, are mentioned hereinbelow:Husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of minor girl, petitioner No. 2, Sri. H.R. Basappa, was working as Manager in APCO Concrete Block Industries, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore. His salary was more than Rs. 12,00,000/- per annum plus other fringed benefits. Respondent No. 1 is M/s. Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Bank') carrying on its Banking operation through out India. In order to allure prospective customers, so as to enable them to have Banking operations with the Bank, it offer...

Sri Shankaragowda S/O Gurubasappa Gowda and ors. Vs. Special Land Acqu ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ57; 2008(4)KCCR2519; 2008(6)AIRKarR198

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, as common questions arise for consideration, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment However, for the sake of convenience the facts pertaining to W.P. No. 8396/2008 are referred hereunder.2. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent No. 1.3. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, to award interest on the market value and also on the amount determined under Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), from the date of taking possession of the lands.4. Lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of formation of M.B.C. Distribution Channel in the Upper Krishna Project. Notifications under Section 4(1) was published and gazetted on 22.3.1990 and the final declaration under Section 6(1) was gazetted on 2.5.1991. The Land Acq...

J.S. Paramesh S/O Siddegowda Vs. Smt. Indramma W/O Venkatesh Murthy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(5)KarLJ502; 2008(3)KCCR2061; 2008(5)AIRKarR349; AIR2008Kar172(DB)

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The challenge in the writ petition is against Annexure-A order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Addl. CJM, Arsikere in O.S. No. 13/2006. As per the impugned order, the plaintiff is directed to pay duty and penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- on the document produced as Ex. P1 before the trial Court. The plaintiff is granted one month time to pay the amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court while imposing the penalty, imposed ten times the amount of the deficient portion of the proper duty. According to the petitioner, the trial Court had a discretion to impose a maximum of ten times of the deficient portion of the proper duty or a lesser amount. It is contended that the trial Court ought to have exercised such discretion and imposed a lesser amount as penalty. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on an observation made by another learned Single Judge in t...

Ms. Sapna Ganglani and anr. Vs. R.S. Enterprises and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant178; ILR2008KAR3928; 2008(6)KarLJ136; 2008(4)KCCR2234; 2008(5)AIRKarR465; AIR2008Kar178

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein who are respectively defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 25177/07 before the learned XXVIIP Addl. City Civil Judge, (CCH No. 29), Mayohall, Bangalore, (Hereinafter referred to as 'The learned Judge') has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 21.11.2007 passed in the said case insofar as it relates to rejecting of the application filed under Order VII Rule (11)(d) of CPC by these petitioner- defendants seeking rejection of the plaint in the said case.2. Stated in brief, the facts leading to this revision petition are:Respondent No. 1 herein viz., M/s. R.S. Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, filed the said suit against both the petitioners 1 and 2 and one Mr. N. Madhusudhan Reddy, respectively as defendant Nos. 1 to 3 seeking the relief of specific performance of contract dated 10.3.2006 entered into between the petitioner-defendants and the respondent-plaintiffs 1 and 2. After the petitioner-defenda...

Bheemappa and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(5)KarLJ517

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. These three petitioners, assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 4th July, 2006 passed in Appeal No. 1227 of 2004 in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 83/4 measuring 9 acres 37 guntas situate at Herur Village, Devadurga Taluk, have presented the instant writ petition.2. Petitioners herein claim that, they are the tenants in respect of the land in question and that, they are cultivating the said land and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Accordingly, they had filed Form 7-A for registration of occupancy rights under Section 77-A of the amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The application filed by petitioners had come up for consideration before the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Raichur on 8th March, 2004 in proceedings No. LRM/TNC/50/99-2000 and the application filed by petitioners were allowed and the occupancy rights was registered in favour of these petitioners. Assailing the ...

Sapna Ganglani D/O Shyam M. Ganglani and Smt. Tamanna Moolchandani W/O ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein who are respectively defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 25177/07 before the learned XXVIIIth Addl City Civil Judge, (CCH No. 29), Mayohall, Bangalore, (Hereinafter referred to as 'The learned Judge') has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 21.11.2007 passed in the said case insofar as it relates to rejecting of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC by these petitioner - defendants seeking rejection of the plaint in the said case.2. Stated in brie the facts leading to this revision petition are:Respondent No. 1 herein viz., M/s. R.S. Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, filed the said suit against both the petitioners 1 and 2 and one Mr. N. Madhusudhan Reddy, respectively as defendant Nos. 1 to 3 seeking the relief of specific performance of contract dated 10.3.2006 entered into between the petitioner-defendants and the respondent-plaintiffs 1 and 2. After the petitioner-defendant...

Sri B. Krishnappa Vs. Smt. Chandrika G.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3574; 2008(5)KarLJ546; 2008(3)KCCR2104; AIR2008Kar175; 2008(5)AIRKarR357

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2007 passed in Small Cause Case No. 357/03 by the learned Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Learned Judge' for short) dismissing the suit for ejectment that was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff.2. Despite service of notice of this petition the respondent has remained absent. Though this case is listed today for admission by consent of Sri S.S. Padmaraj, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is taken up for final disposal and his arguments are heard. The impugned judgment is perused.3. The present petitioner filed his Small Cause Case No. 357/03 against the respondent, who is none other than his divorced wife, on the ground that she is residing in a portion of the same building in which he has been residing and her stay is continued even after his marriage with her came to be dissolved by a decree granted by the Family Court, ...

Prof. Manjunatha B.P. S/O Bhatta Parameshwaayya Vs. Prof. V.J. Pyati S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009CriLJ209; 2008(5)KarLJ723; ILR2008(3)Kar3710; 2008(3)KCCR2063; 2008(6)AIRKarR1; 2008(4)Crimes458

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This revision is against the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 79/2005 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Udupi.2. A private complaint was filed by the respondent in P.C.No.893/2000 which is registered as C.C. No. 1705/2005 for an offence punishable under Sections 384, 385, 389, 467, 468, 506(II) R/W Section 151 of IPC.3. The Trial Court based on the averments of the complaint took cognizance and registered the case. Thereafter, on the basis of the sworn statement and the material produced found prima facie case and ordered for issue of summons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C.4. The said order was called in question by the respondent in Criminal Revision Petition No. 79/2005 before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge by the order in question partly allowed the revision petition. In so far as accused No. 1 is concerned, the issue of process in respect of offence punishable under Sections 384, 385, ...

Shri Allamaprabhu S/O Murigeppa Ghatnatti Vs. Baburao S/O Murigeppa Gh ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2009Kant48; 2008(6)KarLJ169; ILR2008(3)Kar3775; 2008(6)KLJ169; 2008(4)KCCRSN277(DB)

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff who had filed O.S. No. 205/2002 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Jamkhandi, seeking a Judgment and Decree against the defendant/respondents for declaring Sale Deeds dt.12.2.2001, executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, as illegal, null and void in respect of suit properties and an order of perpetual injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 6, not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the plaintiff has filed this Appeal.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Trial Court.3. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 is his younger brother and defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the purchasers of suit lands bearing R.S. No. 10/1, measuring 5 guntas; R.S. No. 11/1, measuring 7.02 acres ...