Karnataka Court June 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.
M.K. Ramachandra Gupta Vs. the Bangalore Development Authority and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3603
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5021/2005 on the file of the Learned XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents - defendants, their agents, servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property from demolishing any structures or dispossessing him from the suit property and to restrain the defendants from taking up constructional activities on the suit land by the 2nd defendant with the aid of the 1st defendant.2. The suit property is measuring 2 acres 8 guntas in S. No. 14/16 situated at Tavakerere village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that the suit was not maintainable since the property was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority had been allotted to the 2nd defendant. Since the 1st defendant had taken possession and delivered possession...
Sri. Ashok Kumar Vs. Dr. T.R. Bhageerathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ221; ILR2008KAR3865; 2009(1)KarLJ17; ILR2008(3)Kar3865; 2008(4)KCCR2500; 2008(6)AIRKarR219
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 11.10.2005 in C.C. No. 289/2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Bagepalli, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and issuing process to the petitioner.2. The respondent contends that the petitioner for consideration received issued a cheque on 02.11.2004 for a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/-in favour of her husband A.G. Sadananda Bhat. The payee - A.G Sadananda Bhat presented the cheque issued by the petitioner for encashment through his bankers and the same came to be returned with an endorsement mat 'the cheque is unpaid for want of funds'. On 09.05.2005 the fact of dishonour of the cheque was intimated to A.G Sadananda Bhat by his Bankers. On 14.05.2005 A.G. Sadananda Bhat got issued a lawyer's notice to the petitioner intimating about the dishonour of the cheque and demanded to pay the amount due un...
Smt. Padma Jalan Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Principal Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3873; ILR2008(3)Kar3873; 2008(5)KLJ509; 2008(3)KCCR2082
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In terms of the order dated 05.06.2008 passed by this Court and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the prayer made seeking to quash the Notification (Preliminary) issued under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of a Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) and the declaration made on 17.08.2007 under Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act, the matter is taken up for consideration.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Notification issued by the 5th respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through the competent authority under Section 3(1) of the Act, in so far as the acquisition of the right of User in the land belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of laying a pipeline for transportation of petroleum products. By amending the writ petition, the Final Notification issued under Section 6(4) of the Act is also challenged.3. Learned Seni...
i.R. Narayana Reddy Vs. Yaram Ramana Reddy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4730;
H.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal by one of the creditors of respondent No. 1 is directed against the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Bellary allowing the application-I. A. No. 24 filed by respondent No. 1 (debtor) to withdraw his petition for insolvency in I.C. No. 15/2003 filed by him under Section 7 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 ('the Act').2. I have heard Sri T.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri V.M. Sheelvant, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and perused the impugned order which reads as follows:SYS files IA No. 24 Under Section 25 of Insolvency Act. Respondents & their counsels absent.Since petitioner is not seeking to reserve his right to file petition, no need to hear respondent on application. Hence application allowed petition dismissed as withdrawn.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the court below had erred in law in granting leave under Section 14 of th...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Renuka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2083; ILR2008KAR5122:2008(4)KCCRSN340:2009(1)AIRKarR442:AIR2009NOC872.
H.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal by National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed against the judgment dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davangere District, Davangere in Case No. WCA:CWC:CR-73/2007 awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,76,255/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 4-the widow, children and mother of the deceased-Shankaraiah Pyatimath who died due to injuries suffered by him in an accident that occurred on 21.03.2006 while he was being carried as a Coolie/Hamali in the tractor-trailer belonging to respondent No. 5.2. I have heard Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment. I have also perused certified copy of the Motor Insurance Policy [Ex.R2(1)] relating to the tractor-trailer which was made available to the Court by the learned Counsel. The following two substantial questions of law are formulated in the memorandum of appeal:i) Whether the Commissioner acted contrary to law i...
Mohan Vs. Rekha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ173
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. Petitioner and one Geeta Bai got married on 4-5-1993. On account of certain differences between the petitioner and his wife, he filed M.C. No. 13 of 1998 for dissolution of marriage. On 13-8-1998 petitioner and his wife filed a compromise petition in M.C. No. 13 of 1998 and accordingly the marriage came to be dissolved. In terms of the compromise the petitioner has paid a permanent alimony of Rs. 35,000/- to his wife Geetha Bai.2. Thereafter, the respondent herein claiming to be the daughter of the petitioner filed Cri. Misc. No. 61 of 1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class Haveri for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In this Cri. Misc. No. 61 of 1999 the petitioner entered appearance and filed objections inter alia contending that the respondent is not his daughter. Before the Trial Court, the respondent got examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked ...
Smt. Jayamma Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secretary of Home ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: ILR2009KAR38
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One Nagaraj, husband of the petitioner and his son Dhananjaya, aged about 11 years went to Tirupati along with R-3 to R-5 on 12-5-2007. The petitioner states that on 13-5-2007, R-3 informed the petitioner over telephone that her husband Nagaraj is missing. The petitioner requested him to trace her husband and also to give complaint if necessary. R-3 to R-5 returned to village from Tirupati on 13-5-2007 instead of the scheduled date 14-5-2007. R-3 returned Rs. 2,000/- cash to the petitioner which he had taken from Nagaraj. On enquiry made by the petitioner, the respondents were unable to give satisfactory answers.2. It is stated that on 12-5-2007 R-3 to R-5, Nagaraj and his son Dhananjaya first went to a hotel in Majestic to have tiffin. Nagaraj while climbing the steps fell down and R-3 to R-5 with great difficulty lifted him and put him in the bus to Tirupati. The petitioner gave a complaint to R-2 on 28-5-2007 reporting the missing of her husband. The polic...
Mukkadan Marine Exports P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Thomas Chacko
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas638(Kar); [2010]97SCL321(Kar)
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The correctness of the order dated October 15, 2007, passed in C. P. Nos. 793 and 794 of 2006 by the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai, in exercise of its power under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter in short called as 'the Act') directing the appellants herein to register the transmission of shares in the name of the respondent herein within 30 days after publication of notice by the respondent by recording its reasons is questioned in this appeal by the appellants urging various grounds.2. Learned senior counsel Sri G. Sarangan on behalf of the appellants submits that the order is not a speaking order and the appellants have not passed an order of rejection of the claim of the respondent for transfer of shares from the name of his deceased father to his name as his claim is not in conformity with Section 108 of the Companies Act read with Regulation 26 of the Regulations. Therefore, he has urged that the order of the Company La...
M.P. Sanathkumar Since Deceased by His L.Rs and ors. Vs. Radakrishna N ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KCCR116
(These writ petition are filed u/Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Order dated 08.12.05 passed by the Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.] and JMFC., Belthandgady, D.K. Dist. In Misc. Case Nos. 5, 6, 4, 7, 3/2005 respectively, vide Annexure-D).1. These petitions have been filed challenging the Orders dated 08.12.2005 in Civil Miscellaneous Case Nos. 3 to 7/2005, directing to draw a Supplemental Preliminary Decree and to return the advance amount of Rs.1,000-00 with interest, within a period of 3 months from the date of the order, holding that the contract of performance has become impossible.In all these case the facts are common; hence they are taken together for consideration.2. The common facts relevant for the purpose of these petitions are as under:The deceased-M.P. Sanathkumar [husband of petitioner No.1 (a) and father of petitioner No.1(b) herein] filed 5 suits in O.S. Nos. 96, 98 to 101/1989 against the respondents herein, seeking specific performance of t...
Panchamal Industrial Corporation Represented by Its Manager, Sri Laxma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant177; 2009LC(NULL)788; ILR2008(3)Kar3815; 2008(5)KLJ283; 2008(4)KCCRSN292; 2008(5)AIRKarR464; AIR2008Kar177
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is by a person who was forced to run from pillar to post to have his grievance redressed regarding back-billing charge raised by the third respondent-assistant executive engineer of the fourth respondent electricity supply company, now calling upon the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 838/-, by way of institution charges/fee.2. In one such effort, while petitioner had failed before the authorities, the matter had come to this court in WP No. 27429 of 2005 and this court in terms of order dated 28-8-2006 [copy at Annexure-B to the writ petition], set aside the affirming order of the appellate authority confirming the demand and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the appellate authority.3. After the matter went back, it appears due to some statutory changes, while the appellate authority is either chief engineer or superintending engineer, in terms of Regulation 3(4) of the KERC (Procedure for Filing Appeal Before the Appellate A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »