Karnataka Court October 2009 Judgments

A.B. Mallikarjuna Son of A.M. Basavegowda Vs. Jubliant Biosys Limited ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act of 1996' in short) praying for appointment of Sole Arbitrator to decide over the dispute which has arisen between the petitioner and respondents.2. Brief facts of the case are as under : Petitioner is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing No. 94, Industrial Suburb, 2nd Stage, Industrial Area, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022, with construction thereon. Respondents 1 and 3 are the companies incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into a Lease Agreement as per Annexure-'B' dated 8lh September 2008. Likewise, another agreement of lease was entered into between petitioner and respondent No. 3 as per Annexure-'C' on the very day i.e., on 8th September 2008. Prior thereto, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the petitioner and the 1st...

M. Hemananda and ors. Vs. the Secretary, Education Department and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(4)KCCRSN265; ILR2010KAR3387

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to permit them to write the examinations for the failed subjects as per the time-table issued on 08.04.2008.2. All the petitioners are the students of Bangalore University studying in either the three years or five years Law Course. It is not in dispute that the Semester Scheme for LLB course is introduced and the petitioners are taking examinations under the said Scheme.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not permitted to take up the examinations for the failed subjects in the immediately ensuing semester examination conducted and that the University is insisting that they have to write their examinations in odd semester if they have failed in odd semester or even semester if they have failed in even semester.4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners taking me through the Regulations framed by the University known as 'regulations Governing the three Year LL.B Course Le...

K.Y. Mylarasetty and ors. Vs. K.S. Basappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ262

N. Kumar, J.1. This is a defendants appeal. Plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the trust deed dated 19-2-1983 is void and for a direction to defendants 1, 4 to 8 who are the trustees, not to act as trustees of the trust and meddle with the properties of the Youth League Charitable Trust and for a comprehensive scheme of the management of the properties of the trust. After contest the suit came to be decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this appeal.2. During the pendency of the appeal, some of the original parties are dead. At the intervention of the well-wishers of Kadur Town/both the warring parties have amicably settled all the disputes and have now formed a society and got the same registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 in which all of them are given an opportunity to participate. In view of the same, setting out the terms and conditions of the compromise, they have filed a compromise petition. It is duly si...

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shankar Shetty and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ280

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan (for short, 'the Commissioner').2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Commissioner.3. Brief facts of the case:That on 10-12-2005 when the claimant was working as loader of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-18 A-4344 belonging to the 1st respondent, the lorry met with an accident, as a result, he sustained injuries. He made an application before the Commissioner seeking compensation.4. The Insurance Company filed its statement of objections resisting the claim.5. The claimant in support of his claim examined himself as P.W. 1 and the doctor who treated him as P.W. 2. He has produced as many as 12 documents which are marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 12.5. The Insurance Company except producing the insurance policy did not lead any independent evidence....

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Regional M ...

Court: Karnataka

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davangere (for short 'the Commissioner').2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Commissioner.3. Brief facts of the case:That on 14.07.2006 when the claimant was working as driver of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-04/B-4181 belonging to the 1st respondent, the lorry met with an accident, as a result, he sustained injuries. He made an application before the Commissioner seeking compensation.4. The Insurance Company filed its statement of objections resisting the claim.5. The claimant in support of his claim examined himself as PW 1 and the doctor as PW 2. He has produced as many as 13 documents, which are marked as Ex. P1 to P13.6. The Insurance Company did not lead any independent evidence except producing the insurance policy Ex. R1(2).7. The Commi...

Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commissi ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This application under Order VI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure [for short the CPC] is by the respondent in an election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 [for short, the Act],2. The petitioner, who claims to have made an attempt to file her nomination papers for seeking election to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly from the K.R. Puram constituency and whose nomination papers did not even elicit any response from the returning officer, even as to accept the same forget about scrutiny and opining on the quality and fate of the nomination, has presented the election petition invoking grounds of Section 100(1)(c) of the Act, seeking for the following relief:a) Pleased to declare the election to K.R. Pura Assembly Constituency as null and void and order fresh elections in the interest of justice and equity, as the petitioner is entitled for relief under Section 100(1)(c) Representation of People Act 1951, ...

PapannA. Vs. Venkataswamy and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KCCR89

(This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-E namely the order passed by the city civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-6) rejecting the Application filed by the petitioner namely I.A.VII in O.S. No. 695/1999 by its order dated 11.7.2008.)1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 11.7.2008 passed on I.A. No. VII in O.S. No. 695/1999 on the file of the learned XXIV Additional city Civil & Session Judge. Bangalore rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. Has presented the instant writ petition.2. The petitioner has filed an application I.A. No. VII under Order 6 and 17 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to amend the prayer column of the plaint by adding additional prayer for the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property, produced at Annexure-C. The said application filed by t...

Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Assist ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4217

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the order dated 10.08.2009 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 19283 to 19294 of 2009 where under the learned single Judge of this court dismissed all the writ petitions only on the premise that the writ petitioners had the alternative statutory remedy of appeals under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short 'the Act'] and therefore reserving liberty to the petitioners, the petitions were dismissed enabling the petitioners to file appeals seeking statutory remedies.2. The writ petitions themselves were directed against the good number of assessment orders [Annexure-D series] passed by the assessing authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 determining the tax liability of the writ petitioners for the various periods mentioned in the orders by passing such orders in terms of the provisions of Section 39[1] of the Act.3. Writ petitioners were aggrieved by these orders for ...

Smt. Yashoda Gowdh and ors. Vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ283

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('Act' for short) vide Annexure-A and the notice issued under Section 28(2) of the Act vide Annexure-E.2. Petitioners claim that they are the tenants of the property bearing Municipal Nos. 6 and 7 situated at Cubbon Road, Bangalore. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are the lessees under a registered lease deed of the properties, which is the subject-matter of the acquisition, they are not notified of the proposed acquisition and the acquisition proceedings are being carried on behind their back.3. The third respondent is the owner of the properties. Counsel appearing for the third respondent contends that the petitioners are neither the occupants nor the persons interested who are entitled for any notice. In fact, it is further contended that as the third respondent was not notified of the prop...

Smt. G. Vijayakumari W/O. Late G.F.R. Jayaraj, Vs. T. Mohan Subramanya ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009(4)Kar4475

N.K. Patil, J.1. Admit. Heard on merits.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.1.2006 passed in MVC No. 1733/2005 by the learned XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Court of Small Causes, SCCH-15, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short).3. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,49,200/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by that, appellants have filed this appeal, seeking enhancement on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.4. In brief the facts of the case are:The appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Sri. Jayaraj. The appellants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Jayaraj, in the accident which occurred on 29.12.2004 at about 9.30 p.m., when he was proceeding towards ...