Karnataka Court April 2009 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.
Shri Basavalinga S/O Channappa Vs. Shri Mohan Raja S/O G.S. Krisiinash ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. Over-ruling the office objections, the appeal was heard regarding admission.2. This Miscellaneous Second Appeal Sled under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.09.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hassan, in R.A. No. 18 of 2008 whereunder the Lower Appellate Court after setting aside the order of the trial Court dismissing the suit on the basis of finding on Preliminary issue and remanding the suit to the trial Court for recording findings on other issues.3. The appellant is the defendant while the respondent is the plaintiff in the trial Court The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. 221 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC-II, Hassan, against the defendant for ejectment from the suit schedule shop. According to the plaintiff, defendant is the tenant of the shop premises measuring East-West 10 ft and North-South: 12 ft. on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,250/- and the defendant b...
Mrs. Joyce Albuquerque W/O. Cliffer Albuquerque Vs. Mr. Cyprian Meneze ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. All the three appeals arise out of the four suits decided by a common judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore between the same parties and the same subject matter.2. The material facts disclose that Lucy Margaret Pereira (L.M. Pereira) plaintiff in OS 297/96 is the owner of the suit property. One Mrs. Joyce Albuquerque-plaintiff m OS 298/96) is the fostered daughter of L.M, Periera and claims to have obtained a registered permanent lease deed dated 4.7.1992 from L.M. Periera in respect of suit property. One Mr. Cyprian Menezes and B. Sudhakar Shenoy-plaintiffs in OS 115/95 contend that L.M. Perira had executed agreement for sale dt 3.10.1991 in respect of suit property for a consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- and that they have paid an advance of Rs. 6,65,000/-, hence filed a suit for s pecific performance.3. Mrs. Joyce Albuquerque got herself impleaded as 2nd defendant in OS 115/95 and resisted the suit for specific performance on the ground that she...
Prakash Kumar S/O Late Shah J. Pannanlal, Vs. C.A. Venkatachalapathy S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. These two revision petitions by the tenants are directed against the two orders dated 02.12.2008 passed by the Revisional Court - tine Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Revision (Rent) Nos. 17/2007 & 16/2007. By the impugned orders; the, Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioners by confirming the order of eviction dated 23.12.2006 passed by the trial court - the Court of the I Additional I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mysore in H.R.C. Nos. 59 & 60/2005.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned orders.3. Sri T.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants submits that these two revision petitions may be disposed of by granting time till 31st March 2011 to the petitioners/tenants to voluntarily vacate and to deliver vacant possession of the petition premises in H.R.C. Nos. 59/2005 & 60/2005 to the respondents/landlords. He further submi...
Smt. Renukamma W/O Sri N.G. Keriyappa Vs. Sri Ramachandra Bhatta S/O S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the landlady challenging the order dated 24.3.2006 made in revision rent No. 7/2000 by the Pri District Judge at Chitradurga. Originally, the petitioner herein had filed H.R.C. No. 3/93 before the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sagar. The same was allowed by order dated 10.12.1999 against which the respondent herein had preferred Revision Rent No. 7/2000 and by the impugned order, the eviction petition filed by the landlady was dismissed by allowing the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the landlady has preferred this revision petition.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court.3. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the schedule premises filed the eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a), (h), (j) and (o) and Section 21(C) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 in H.R.C. No. 3/93 before the Prl.Munsiff at Sagar. According to her orig...
The Commissioner of Income-tax and Vs. Vijaya Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These two Income Tax Appeals are filed by the Department framing the following Common question of law:Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that for the purpose, of writing off of bad debts it was not essential to square off each individual account of every debtor and it would be sufficient if the debit entries are made into the profit and loss, account and corresponding credit is made in a bad debt reserve account contrary to the provision of the Act and especially explanation to clause vii of Section 36(1) of the Act brought into effect from 1.4.1989 by Finance Act 2001?.In support of the same, reliance is placed on the finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer at para 4 in his order and re-affirmed by the first appellate authority at para 12, its order, which has been set aside by the Second Appellate Tribunal, after referring to Section 36(1)(vii) and Explanation read with Section 36(2) of Income Tax Act of on the Gujarath High Cour...
Doddaiah S/O Late Doddaiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Hullahal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
ORDERN. Ananda, J.1. The petitioners arrayed as accused 1 to 9 in Crime No. 59/2008 registered for an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. 149 IPC are apprehending their arrest in the above said crime. Therefore, they are seeking a direction under Section 438 Crl.P.C.2. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the State.3. The gist of the first information is as follows: The husband of complainant namely Puttarajn and complainant hails from of Hosaveedu Hundi village. Her marriage with abovesaid Puttarajn was performed about three years heck. He was working as driver in KSRTC. He was not taking proper care of the complainant. He had developed illicit intimacy with the daughter of I accused namely Sheela. In that connection, there used to be frequent quarrels between complainant her mother and her sister on one side and accused 1 to 8 on the other side.4. The complainant had left her husband's house and she was living in her parents house at H...
Sri Divyesh Kumar S/O Ramesh K. Shah Rep. by G.P.A. Holder Ramesh K. S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P No. 26372/2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2007, wherein the learned single Judge has, dismissed the writ petition.2. The appellants, herein filed W.P., No. 26372/2005 seeking for quashing of, the impugned notification dated 02.02.2005 published on 03.12.2005 by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, B.D.A. ) in so far as it relates to the petitioner's site bearing No. H47/G, situate at 5th block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.3. it is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners have purchased the above said property under the registered sale deed dated 05.10.2004 from Sri K. Shivashankaran, son of M. Kuppu Swamy for valuable consideration of Rs. 32,00,000/- by taking loan and the said sale deed was registered as document No. RJN-1-04539/2004-05 before the Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.3.1. It is further averred that the vendor of the said property represented the petitioners that originally...
Shivakumar Swamy S/O Shivalingappana Madappa Vs. Smt Basamma W/O Mahad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
A.S. Bopanna, J.1. The appellant heroin is the plaintiff in 0.5. No. 59/1997. The suit in question was filed seeking for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the right of the plaintiff to use the water through the suit 'A' schedule water course for agricultural purposes to cultivate their lands. The Trial Court has dismissed the said suit by its judgment and decree dated 22.10.2003. The plaintiff was therefore before the Lower Appellate Court in R.A. No. 66/2003. The Lower Appellate Court after re-appreciating the matter, has dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 03.04.2006. The plaintiff therefore claiming to he aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the Courts below is before this Court.2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the 'A' schedule property is a kharab land measuring 15 guntas in Sy. No. 215/2 of Eshwaragowdanahalli and there is a water course in the said land running from North to South. Acc...
L.M.J. International Ltd. Represented by Its Export Director Mr. Vikra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2008 passed in M.A. No. 16/2008 by the learned District, and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, confirming the order dated 12.08.2008 passed in C. Misc. No. 13/2008 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dri.) Chikmagalur.2. C. Misc. No. 13/2008 was filed by the petitioner herein seeking to set aside an exparte Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 34/1998. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein seeking recovery of money and the same was decreed on 20.06.2000. The petitioner sought for setting aside the decree passed exparte on the ground that he was no? served with the suit, summons and had no knowledge of the proceedings instituted and that he learnt about the decree passed only in the month of March, 2002, when the Ameen came to him for execution of the decree and only thereafter he filed the Miscellaneous Petition. An application seeking condonation of delay was also filed explaining the delay in simil...
Smt. Achala Ganapathy Vs. State of Karnataka by the Principal Secretar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
N.K. Patil, J.1. When this matter had come up for orders for taking steps and awaiting notice to respondent No. 6 on 31.03.2009, matter was adjourned to today with a direction to the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents-1 to 5 to serve notice by hand summons to the 6th respondent through the 5th respondent. Accordingly, he has filed a memo dated 02.04.2009 stating that the hand summons has been served to respondent No. 6 on 31.03.2009 and accordingly respondent No. 6 Smt. Shaku S. Kamath is present before the Court. The said memo is placed on record.2. Though this matter is posted in the orders list, having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the writ petition filed by the party in person, matter stands disposed of with the consent of the petitioner, party in person, learned Government Pleader and respondent No. 6, party in person who is also present before the Court,3. Petitioner, party in person has sought for a direction to the police authorities to restore ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »