Karnataka Court June 2009 Judgments

Zakirunnissa W/O Late Nawab Jan, Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Se ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3392:2009(4)KCCR2895:2009(6)AIRKarR252.

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioners have questioned the Notification vide Annexure-'F' dated 17.1.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent- The Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act' for short), as also the notices issued under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act vide Annexures-'G-1' and 'G-2' dated 15.5.2008, calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of the acquired properties. The petitioners have also prayed in the writ petition that the South End Metro Railway Station may be located in Survey No. 6/1 and 6/2 of Dasarahalli (Jayanagar Extension). Alternatively, it is prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to construct the South End Metro Railway Station as per the original approved design and alignment vide proceedings at Annexure-'A' on the property earlier earmarked for South tend Metro Railway Station.2. The averments in the writ petition disclose th...

Shaik Shafi Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ85

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. Although the matter is listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, the matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the learned Advocates.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is appointed as a Notary on 18-10-2001. On 24-11-2008, he attested and notarised the affidavit of one Smt. Sandya, an applicant for the issuance of the passport. To his surprise, the Passport Officer found that the said affidavit did not contain the signature of the deponent, Smt. Sandya. On 25-11-2008, the Regional Passport Officer brought it to the notice of the Law Secretary. In turn, the Law Department vide its letter dated 11-12-2008 put the petitioner on show-cause notice giving him 15 days time to offer his explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 22-12-2008. Its sum and substance is that the said Smt. Sandya was known to him, that he had explained the contents of the affidavit to her and thereafter asked her to sign the aff...

Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited Rep. by Its Authorise ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. W.P. No. 20669/2007 and WP. Nos. 9272/2009 & 9900-9907/2009 are filed by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (for short hereinafter called as 'Nandi') and WP. No. 6820/2008 is filed by Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers' Organization.2. By filing these writ petitions, the notifications dated, 22.11.2006, 13.11.2007 and 3/2.2009 issued by respondent No. 1-Government of India, for acquisition of lands in Madavara Village in Bangalore North Taluk, for widening National Highway No. 4 and for formation of truck lay bay, are questioned.3. Respondent No. 1-Government of India, having regard to the heavy traffic on National Highway No. 4, wants to convert four lane Highway into six lane Highway. Respondent No. 1 also wants to form a truck lay bay in about 4 acres 35 guntas of land. Various survey numbers are involved in acquisition as mentioned in Annexure-A to WP. No. 20669/2007, viz., Sy. Nos. 27/1C, 27/2, 30/4A, 30/4B, 30/5B, 34/1A, 34/1B, 34/2, 35/1A1, ...

Subbanna Gowramma Family Trust Represented by Its Trustee, Sri. R.S. D ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]314ITR284(KAR); [2009]314ITR284(Karn)

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at the stage of hearing of interlocutory application.2. Accepting the reasons stated in the Misc.Cvl.petitions No. 1408/2009 and 1409/2009 filed in both these appeals delay of 526 days in filing the appeals is condoned. Accordingly, Misc.Cvl. Nos. 1408 & 1409/2009 are allowed.3. These two appeals are filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No. 1685/BNG/1988 and Income Tax Appeal No. 1773/Bang/1988 dated 12-3-2007 framing the following question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal should have held that the provisions of Section 161(1A) were inapplicable while giving effect to the earlier order dated 8-11-2006 of the High Court of Karnataka?.In support of the same urged the grounds and requested this Court to answer the said question of law in favour of the assessee by allowing these two appeals.4. The ground of a...

V.S. Balasubramanyam S/O Late V.S. Shesha Iyer and Smt. Kalavathi W/O ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4276; 2010(1)KarLJ359; 2009(3)KCCR2240; 2009(5)AIRKarR316

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court. In this judgment for convenience the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court. Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants before the Trial Court for the following reliefs:(a) Wherefore, the plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that they are not bound by any arrangement made or documents entered into in between defendants interse pertaining to the suit schedule properties.(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the construction put up on the suit schedule property;(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants or anybody claiming under the defendants from entering into schedule property.(d) There may be a decree for permanent injunction directing the defendants not to alienate or alt...

Sri Govind B. Ron, S/O Sri Bhima Rao Ron Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. b ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3805; 2010(1)KarLJ319:2009(6)AIRKarR454(D.B)

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. The petitioner was granted mining lease on 26.10.1983 in respect of major mineral 'Moulding sand' over an area of 25 acres (10.11 Hectares) in Sy. No. 232/16 of Kuravatti village, Hoovina Hadagali Taluk, Bellary District bearing M.L. No. 1914 for a period of twenty years which concededly expired on 25.10.2003.2. It is not in dispute that the impugned mining area is located in Tungabhadra river bed and the same is a revenue land and not a forest land. As the period of mining lease was due to expire on 25.10.2003, the petitioner filed an application on 22.10.2002 for renewal under Rule 24-A of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter for short referred as MC Rules), of course within the stipulated time as per the provisions of MC Rules.3. According to the petitioner since the petitioner had applied for renewal within the time stipulated under the provisions of MC Rules, 1960, even if such application for renewal was not renewed, the period of lease shall be...

Bharat Credit Co-operative Society Represented by Its Chairman, K.M. N ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3218

ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.7.2007 passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, discharging the respondents, the accused before the Trial Court under Section 249 of Cr.P.C.2. The facts relevant far the purpose of tins revision are as under:I will be referring to the parties as per their rank before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience. The petitioner heron is the complainant and he filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against die respondents herein who are the accused before the Trial Court requesting to take action against the accused for die offence punishable under Sections 379, 405, 408 and 468 I.P.C. to deal against them in accordance wall law. After fifing the complaint the case was registered and the warrants ware issued to dm accused. They appeared before the Trial Court and after hearing die Counsel for die parties, the Trial Court passed a considered order on 2.12.06 rejecting the memo of accuse...

Sri C.S. Muniyappa (Since Deceased by Proposed Lrs. Sri Thammaiah Youn ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(5)KarLJ588;

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. The third respondent is the first plaintiff and one Muniyappa is the second plaintiff. Respondents 1 & 2 are defendants 1 and 2 before the trial Court. Petitioners claim that they are the surviving legal representatives of deceased second plaintiff. In this judgment for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the trial Court.2. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 5950/1990 for declaration of title, for a direction to transfer the katha of schedule property to their names and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit second plaintiff - C.S. Muniyappa died on 11.02.2002. The petitioners on coming to know about the pendency of O.S. No. 5950/1990 filed I.A. Nos. II/2005, III/2005 and IV/2005 for condonation of delay, to set aside the abatement and to bring them on record as the surviving legal representatives of deceased second plaintiff C.S. Muniyappa. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, the petitioners contend that ...

Smt. P. Ragini W/O Sri Padmanabhan Vs. Bank of India by Its Chief Mana ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)AIRKarR459

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing the impugned order dated 9th May 2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore on I.A. No. 436/2005 in I.R. No. 13/2006 under Annexure A and to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal to condone the delay, if any and direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal to proceed further in LR. No. 13 of 2006 in disposing the same on merits.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, the petitioner herein had earlier filed W.P. No. 3259/2004 assailing the correctness of the notice dated 6th December 2003 issued by the second respondent herein vide Annexure D therein. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 14th October 2004 and the writ petition filed by petitioner stood disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to avail the other remedies with an observation that if any appeal is filed by petitioner before the competent authority, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of delay sin...

Sri Padmanabha S. Shettigar S/O. Veera Shettigar and Smt. Nipmala P. S ...

Court: Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.1. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 158/98. The suit in question was Sled seeking for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The Trial Court after considering the rival contentions has dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 03.08.2000. The plaintiffs were therefore before the Lower Appellate Court in R.A. No. 120/2000. The Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence has affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and concurred with the judgment Against the concurrent findings and judgments and decree rendered by the Courts below, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this second appeal.2. The parties are referred to in the same rank as assigned to them before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience and clarity.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants while assailing the judgments passed by the Courts below would contend that the question that arises for consideration is &s; to whether the Cour...