Karnataka Court October 2009 Judgments

B. Koosappa S/O. Basappa Vs. P. Veerappa @ Koosappa S/O. Parvathappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009(4)Kar4523

H.G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2007 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nanjangud, in the appeal in R.A. No. 70 of 1999. By the impugned judgment, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the plaint 'A' schedule property and granting possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property.2. I have heard Sri M.Sivappa, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments of the two Courts below. Concurrent findings by both the Courts, Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties. It is relevant to refer to para 16 of the lower Appellate Court's judgment:16. Exs.P-5 to 7 coupled with Index of lands and Record of Rights produced at Exs.P-1 to P-2, clearly go to show that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of 3 acre 8 guntas in Sy. No. 205/1 which also includes 'B' sc...

Mr. Abdul Kareemlal Telgi S/O. Lad Sab Telgi Vs. State of Karnataka by ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The revision petitioner herein, who is accused No. 13 in SC No. 9/2001 on the file of the learned Special Judge, XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court' for short) has challenged in this revision petition the correctness of the order dated 7.8.2008 passed in the said case rejecting his application, filed under Section 30 of Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Prisons Act' for short), seeking direction to the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, to permit him (accused) to receive homely food from outside the prison.2. The said application was opposed by the respondent - CBI by filing written objections to it. After hearing both the sides, the Trial Court passed the impugned order rejecting the said application. Therefore, the revision petitioner - accused has challenged the correctness of the said order.3. At the outset, Sri B.R. Nanjundaiah, the learned Senior counsel an...

Sri S.R. Shankar S/O S.N. Rama Reddy and Smt. Keshwamma W/O Narayana R ...

Court: Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is a peculiar appeal arising out of the judgment and decree passed by this court dated 24.3.2008 in TOS No. 2/2007.2. Mr. H.S. Rama Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a mistake in the proper description of the name of the husband of the second appellant in the cause title that it is wrongly described as the wife of Thippa Reddy whereas actually the second appellant is the wife of Sri Narayana Reddy and prays for permission to correct the cause title. A memo is also filed before the court to this effect.3. Submission is noted. Permitted. The Counsel is permitted to carry out the correction to the cause title.4. The Testamentary Original Suit which came to be numbered after the respondent's efforts to probate a will said to have been executed by one Thippa Reddy, who happened to be the paternal uncle of the respondent and the grand-father of the first appellant on the father's side and the father of the second appella...

The State of Karnataka represented by Revenue Secretary and the Assist ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERL. Narayana Swamy, J.1. This petition is Died against the order passed in appeal No. 363 of 2002 dated 2/9/2002 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Ban galore and the petitioner herein sought for quashing the same.2. Facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are as under:Land bearing Sy. No. 51/3 measuring 5 guntas, Sy. No. 51/4, 17 guntas, 50/3 measuring 28 guntas, Sy No. 50/2 measuring 26 guntas, 51/1 measuring 22 guntas, Sy. No. 52 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas, 51/2 meeasuring 2 acres 29 guntas, Sy. No. 50/1 measuring 23 guntas, Sy. No. 52 measuring 3 acres in all 13 acres 19 guntas situated at Nettigere village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk has been purchased by the first respondent on 20/8/1988 from its owners without obtaining prior permission from the government and ultimately the said transaction since violated Section 79-B and 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, a case was registered against the respondents in Case No. LRF 83/164/2001 & 2002 on ...

The Tahsildar, Vs. Sri. D. Halappa, Retd. Supdt. Engineer

Court: Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.1. The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 148/1999. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff seeking for ejectment and also for the arrears of rent. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 31.8.2002 has decreed the suit. The defendant was before the Lower Appellate Court in RA No. 107/2002. The Lower Appellate Court by its judgment dated 25.2.2005 has affirmed the findings of the trial Court and has concurred with the judgment. Against the concurrent findings and judgments rendered by the Courts below, the defendant is before this Court in this appeal.2. The case in brief is that, the plaintiff is the owner of the premises bearing No. 1708/2 situate at Holalkere town. The said premises was leased to the Taluk Office at Holalkere since the year 1992. Initially, the rent in respect of the property was fixed at Rs. 4000/- per month. Subsequently in the year 1998, the plaintiff put up certain additional construction measuring 34 ft X 35 ft. The sa...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Employees Contributory Provident ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This petition is filed by a Trust called 'Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited Employees Contributory Provident Fund Trust' seeking winding up of the respondent company under the provisions of Section 433(a) & (f) of the Act.2. This petition is filed pursuant to the liberty reserved in Company Petition No. 248/2000 to the petitioner herein to initiate fresh proceedings against the respondent company hi the event the respondent failing to pay any of the installments as stated in the compromise petition filed in Company Petition No. 248/2000.3. According to the petitioner, the respondent company is a Public Limited Company having its registered office at IIMT House, Bellary Road having an authorized capital of Rs. 135,00,00,000/- divided into 13,50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the company is Rs. 120,04,03,400/- divided into 12,60,43,340 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The main objects, of the respondent comp...

indo Swiss Jewels Ltd. Vs. Hmt Watches Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This Company petition has been filed under Section 433(e) & (f) read with Section 439 of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the respondent company, namely. IIMT Watches Limited, under the provisions of the Companies Act.2. According to the petitioner the respondent company was incorporated on 19.8.1999 under the provisions of the Companies Act as a Public Limited Company limited by shares having its registered and Corporate Office at No. 59. Bellary Road, Bangalore. The authorized and paid up capital of the respondent company is Rs. 10,00,000/- only divided into Rs. 1,00,000/ - equity shares of Rs. 10/ - each.3. The main objects of the respondent company are to acquire the assets and liabilities and take over the business of IIMT limited now carried on under its watch business group as a going concern and to carry on the business of designing manufacture, selling, exporting of ail kinds of watches, time pieces, clocks, chronometers, horological instrumen...

Siddappa Vs. K. Nanjappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ649

Jawad Rahim, J.1. This appeal is by the complainant against the judgment in Cri. A. No. 724 of 2002, dated 7-11-2003 setting aside the conviction of the respondent-accused recorded by the Trial Court in CC No. 35132 of 2000, dated 22-11-2002.2. Heard.3. The case papers reveal that the appellant-Siddappa initiated prosecution against the respondent-K Nanjappa for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') on the basis that there was financial transaction between the parties. The respondent had requested financial assistance and borrowed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- assuring to repay promptly. However, he defaulted. When the complainant raised demand to repay the amount, the respondent issued cheque on 12-6-2000 for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- assuring encashment. The cheque on presentation was dishonoured vide endorsement dated 16-6-2000 insisting issuance of statutory notice which was also not complied.4. The learned jurisdictional Magist...

Pampanna Vs. Thimmanna and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4341

Aravind Kumar, J.1. Though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.2. This appeal is filed questioning the judgment and award passed in MVC. 289/05 by the MACT and Fast Track Court - III, Raichur, whereunder the claimant had sought for total compensation of Rs. 2.05 lakhs against which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 60,500/- and held that the claimant was entitled for only 50% of the said amount by fixing contributory negligence on the appellant to the extent of 50%. Not being satisfied with the said award, the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of the same and also questioning the finding of the Tribunal in fixing 50% contributory negligence on him.3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are:a) That on 20.1.2005, the appellant was riding a motorcycle along with pillion rider, Sri. Shivaraj on Devadurga - Jalahalli Road near Karigudda Cross at 11.30 A.M., and while proceed...

The Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Vs. Sri P.K. Joseph S/O ...

Court: Karnataka

B.S. Patil, J.1. The Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2005 passed in OS No. 796/99.2. The appellant herein was the defendant before the court below. The respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant Corporation alleging that the officials of the appellant Corporation were making to demolish the compound wall put up (sic) his property and also a portion of his property.3. It is the case of the plaintiff respondent herein that the suit schedule property was originally a site allotted in favour of one M. Omkar by Kaveri House Budding Co-operative Society and later on the society executed a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1998 in favour of the said M. Omkar. Subsequently, the allottee M. Omkar sold the suit site in favour of one Ramakka under a sale deed dated 15.12.1984 and from the said Ramakka the plaintiff purchased vide sale deed dated 1.3.1991. It is the farther case of the plaintiff that the layout formed by the society h...