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.
Sri Yamanappa Satyappa Bandiwadar S/O Satyappa Bandiwaddar, Vs. Aminga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ247; ILR2008(3)Kar3854
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioners are the residents of Amingad village with their names found in the voter's list, have presented this petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Quo Warrant to oust the second respondent from the post of member of the first respondent-Gram Panchayat.2. In the election to the membership of the first respondent-gram panchayat, the second respondent on 26/11/2001 having filed his nomination to contest the election from Ward No. 1 reserved for BCM 'A' category, was duly declared elected, while in the subsequent election held on 16/02/2005, the second respondent filed his nomination for membership to the first respondent-Gram Panchayat from Ward No. 1, reserved for BCM 'B', category, and was also declared elected on 01/03/2005.3. The petitioners, residents and voters of the village within the territorial jurisdiction of the first respondent-Gram Panchayat, having noticed that the second respondent, in the first election...
Ranganath Ramchandra Suryavanshi Vs. Mohan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4774; 2008(5)KarLJ504; 2008(4)KCCR2287; 2008(5)AIRKarR369; AIR2008NOC2814
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This second appeal gives rise to an occasion to interpret Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act' for short). The defendant before the Trial Court is the appellant herein and he is aggrieved by the lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the Trial Court inasmuch as though the Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and consequential injunction, the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and hence this second appeal by the defendant.2. The facts which fall within a very narrow compass are to the effect that the plaintiff, being the owner of plot No. 11 of R.S. No. 224 of Bagalakote, filed the suit in question by contending that the appellant herein, who was the defendant and being the owner of the adjacent plot No. 12, had encroached upon the plaintiffs property and the portion encroached is described as GBC in the sketch annexed to the plaint and, t...
Krishna Bhat (Deceased) by His L.R. Vs. State Through Land Tribunal an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ153
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28-4-1989 passed by the Land Tribunal, Jewargi, has filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Gulbarga, in L.R.A. No. 74 of 1989. When the said appeal was pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority, in view of the amendment of the Land Reforms Act 18 of 1990, the Constitution of the Appellate Authority was abolished and parties were permitted to file a civil petition before this Court under Section 17 of the Amended Act, 1990. Accordingly, petitioner has filed a civil petition before this Court in No. 12256 of 1991 and the same was converted into the instant writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner now represented by his legal representative in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner has filed Form I for registration of occupancy rights in Sy. Nos. 247 and 256 to an extent of 28 acres 31 guntas and 25 acres and 33 guntas respectively, situate at Ganwar Village, Jewargi Talu...
M.D. Book Centre Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: (2009)26VST448(Karn)
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petition questioning correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated December 13, 2007, in S.T.P. No. 1000 of 2005 had been filed praying to allow the revision petition and to set aside the order of the first appellate authority and the assessing authority and to re-verify the books of account and to pass orders on merits.2. The ground of attack before the Appellate Tribunal was that the first appellate authority has erroneously passed the order ignoring the statement of objections filed on September 5, 2002 and September 16, 2002. Further, the Tribunal was required to frame the questions finally arising out of the appeal filed by the assessee, which has not been donedespite the legal grounds urged in the appeal. Therefore, the matter requires further consideration. Hence, this revision petition.3. The ground of attack is that the Tribunal while allowing the appeal has made certain observations on merits of the case which will a...
The National Co-op. Bank Ltd. Rep. by Its Manager Vs. M.V. Rangachar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2008
Reported in: ILR2008(3)Kar3824; 2008(5)KLJ279; 2008(4)KCCR2164; 2008(6)AIRKar230
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant challenging the order of acquittal dated 4/3/2005 acquitting the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, passed by the 16th Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore, in C.C. No. 2805/2003.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the cheque Ex.R2 dated 10/12/2002 for Rs. 49,58,010/- issued by the respondent/accused in favour of the appellant The cheque came to be presented on the very same day and it was dishonoured. Therefore, the appellant herein despatched the demand notice on 26/12/2002 but the same came to be unserved as 'not claimed'. The notice sent Under Certificate of Posting on 26/12/2002 is deemed to have served on the respondent personally at his residence. The respondent/accused though aware of the fact that his account in HSBC Ltd., Manipal Center, Dickensan Road,...
Francis Rebello Vs. K. Vimala and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3627; 2008(6)KarLJ328; 2008(3)KCCR2109
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The Petitioner-tenant questioning the correctness of the order dated 10/01/2003 in proceedings No. LRT 28,383/81-82 vide Annexure -G' on the file of the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk, rejecting his claim for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 52/2A1A measuring 0-10 cents situate at Alape village, Mangalore Taluk, has presented the instant petition.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he has filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of sy. No. 52/2A1A measuring 0-10 cents situate at Alape Village. The said application filed by the petitioner came up for consideration before the Land Tribunal and the same was rejected. The petitioner questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal by filing Writ Petition before this court. The said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for c...
E.A. D'souza Vs. Cyril Jospeh Rodrigues and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3819; 2008(5)KLJ704; 2008(3)KCCR2079
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The common petitioner questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the V Land Tribunal, Karkala dated 30/07/1981 and 22/08/1981 vide proceedings Nos. TRL 92/81-82 and TRL 166/81 -82 insofar as it relates to Sy. No. 174/1 OB 1 measuring 0-10 acres and Sy. No. 161/1B1 measuring 0.17 acres situate at Pucchamogaru village, Karkala Taluk respectively, has presented these Writ Petitions.2. The grievance of the learned Counsel appearing for the common petitioner in these Writ Petitions is that, the petitioner claims that he is the owner of the lands in question and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands and that the first respondent made an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands. After verification, he came to know that the lands in question have been registered in the name of the first respondent by the Land Tribunal by passing the above said impugned orders. The petitioner was neither a party to th...
G. Somashekara Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)KarLJ35; 2008(5)KCCRSN650
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner is questioning Annexure-Q. Pursuant to Annexure-Q, the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement is handed to the petitioner.2. The petitioner during the course of his service with respondents 3 and 4 was saddled with two inquiries, one inquiry resulted in the modification of the order by the Appellate Tribunal and the other has resulted in a compulsory retirement.3. The backdrop of the case is that the petitioner possesses qualification of M.Sc. in Physics. Having regard to his qualification he was appointed on 1-2-1976 in the Institution run by the third respondent. It is not in dispute that the institution is in receipt of grant-in-aid. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner initially in the year 1984 on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 5-3-1983. He was not taking classes allotted to him regularly and failed to cover the portion prescribed in the syllabus while working as a lecturer in Science...
Sri M.V. Thimmaiah S/O Late Venkataiah, Joint Director of Social Welfa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)KCCRSN162; 2008(6)AIRKarR215
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-A order dated 2.6.2008 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 2576/2008 which was rued by the petitioner himself. As per the said order dated 2.6.2008, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents in the application, but refused to grant any interim order observing that the Tribunal was of the view that it was not a case where the applicant was entitled for an ex parte interim order sought for by him in the application without notice to the respondents. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant an ex parte interim order, the applicant in Application No.2576/2008 has filed this writ petition.2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having considered the materials placed on record, we felt that since the writ petition is filed against an order refusing to pass an ex parte interim order and since the prayer for interim order will come again before the Tribunal, it is not a fit case for interference...
M. Ethiraj Vs. Smt. Farida Khanum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR3500; 2009(2)KarLJ481; 2008(4)KCCRSN321
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner is the landlord of the premises in question, of which the respondents the tenant. The petitioner filed eviction petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, for eviction of the respondent from the schedule premises. The Court below dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the Rent Act is not applicable to such premises as the eviction petition is filed within 15 years of completion of the construction of the building in which the premises is situated.2. The premises in question is in the ground floor of the building, which has totally three floors that is ground, first and second. Petitioner is aged about 70 years. According to him, he has suffered heart attack and he was advised rest and further advised not to climb stairs etc., Wife of the petitioner is stated to be a diabetic patient, having arthritis and experiences pain While climbing the stairs. For the present, the petitioner is residing in the first floor ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »