Karnataka Court October 2010 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.
Kusumakar Shetty Vs. Smt Gangamma W/O Magappa UdupA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. Defendant in OS 56/1992 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kundapura is the appellant is the appeal.2. Parties will be referred according to their status found in the suit for convenience.3. Plaintili has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant or men claiming through defendant from interfering with the northern portion of Sy.No.29/1A of Kambadakone Village of Kundapura Taluk and that it is having a width of 10 feet, running from east-west and also the water channel on its southern side of the said pathway.4. Case of the plaintiff to seek the above relief is that there has been a pathway with a width of 10 feet. It is used by the plaintiff and other people to carry headloads, vehicles etc. The said pathway is used from 1.3.1967 as of right for the movement of the people with headloads, vehicles etc. A rough sketch is produced along with the plaint. It describes the plots in Sy.Nos.29/2 and 36/2 cf Kambadakone Village. The said pathway is left ...
Sri. M. Venkataswamy S/ O Late Moogappa Vs. Smt. Jayamroa W/O C .Rangh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
ORDER1. Respondent has filsd O.SNo.6010/1994 against the petitioner seeking specific performance of agreements of sale dated 02.02.1991 and 11.07.1991. Contesting the suit, written statement was filed. Issues were framed on 06.08 1997. Trial has taken place. Defendant Sled LA.No. 19 under Order 11 Rule (14) of Code of Civil Procedure to direct the plaintiff to produce the three documents listed there under. The plaintiff filed objections interalia contending that, the alleged documents are not in her possession and hence, the question of producing same does not arise. The defendant also filed IA.No.20 under Order 14 Rule (1) and (5) of Code of Civil Procedure to strike off issue No.2 and raise an issue, proposed therein. To the said application also the plaintiff filed objections. The Trial Court has rejected both the applications. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed these writ petitions.2. Sri.Vijayakirmar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner contends that, the Trial Court has com...
M/S. Concord Tools Private Limited. and ors Vs. State Bank of India, a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
ORDER1. These writ petitions are filed by M/s. Concord Tools Private Limited and its directors. Which is in W.P.Nos.30103/2009 and 30244/2009, wherein the petitioners have challenged the public notice issued under Section 13(4) of SRFAESI Act and also seeking a direction to quash the aforesaid notice and also for mandamus not to confirm the sale pursuant to the aforesaid notice. Similarly the guarantor of the aforesaid company, namely Smt.Shanthi Kanniyan, wife of the second petitioner in the earlier writ petition, has filed W.P.No.31219/2009 for similar relief in respect of the house property, which is given as surety for the loan.2. In these proceedings, respondent - bank has entered appearance and filed statement of objection stating that pursuant to the impugned notice, the sale has already taken place and In respect of two items of property, which was put to auction, sale is confirmed by the Recovery Officer and in respect of the remaining property, process of confirmation of sale...
B.Ningegowda S/O Late Bore Gowda Vs. Assistant Commissioner Sakleshpur ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
ORDER1. Before the arguments commenced Counsel for petitioner submitted that at the time of filing this writ petition he has arrayed the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar as respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter, respondents 3 to 7 got themselves impleaded by filing application to come on record as additional respondents. Tire petitioner's counsel would further submit that before taking up this matter for consideration the State Government, should be made as formal party to this proceedings. Therefore, he may be permitted to amend the cause tide to include the State Government as 8th respondent to this writ petition. The oral request made by the Counsel is allowed and the petitioner's counsel is directed to amend the cause title in the course of the day. The learned Government Advocate Sri.R.B.Satyanarayana Singh is directed to take notice for State Government along with respondents 1 and 2 for whom he is already appearing as counsel on record.2. The petitioner herein is impugning the cal...
Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has raised the challenge to the reassessment order, dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure-K) passed by the respondent No.2 and the consequential demand notice, dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure-L).2. Sri A. Shankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner complains of the violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that despite the specific request made by the petitioner for an opportunity of hearing, the same has not been acceded to by the respondent No.2. He has relied on this Court's decision in the case of BATA INDIA LIMITED v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OP COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT 31, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 24 VST 510 (Karn). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted herein below:" After careful perusal of the reassessment orders passed by the first respondent it emerges that the first respondent has proceeded to pass the said orders without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. As a matter of fact, the petitio...
Smt Pankaja Thaman, Vs. Sri T Ramesh,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the Fast Track Court IV, Bangalore in Crl.A 1358/2007 dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused.According to the complainant, she had lent a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to her sister's husband who is none other than the accused herein during February 2006 Towards discharge of the same, the accused had given a cheque for Rs. 1,50.000/- dated 2.5.2006 drawn on Canara Bank, Girinagar Branch. The same was dishonored on presentation for 'insufficient funds'/payment slopped by the drawer. After causing legal notice, since the amount was not paid, case came to be filed The trial court after inquiry, held the accused guilty of the offence and ordered to pay Rs.2 lakhs out of which, Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be paid to the complainant and Rs.50.000/- to the State. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court. Hence, this appeal.Heard the counsel representing the parties.According lo th...
Sri. C. Hanumanthappa, S/O. Seenappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents not to issue hakkupathras in respect of the lands surrounding S.No.44 of Hongasandra Village.2. The petitioner had applied for grant of quarry lease in respect of 2 acres of land in S.No.44 and ultimately, the land was granted to an extent of 20 guntas. There were continuous litigations between the State and the peUtioner for renewal of lease etc. and as the lease was not renewed, he has also filed W.P.5937/2010 which is pending before this Court. He submitted a representation at Annexure-K stating that some persons are unauthorisedly putting up the constructions in the land bearing S.No.44 and therefore requested to take action against them in accordance with law. Apprehending that the hakkupathras will be granted to the abovesaid persons, the present petition has been filed.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.4. Admittedly, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner...
Destiny Recreation Association Vs. State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
ORDER1. [.earned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard.2. According to the petitioner, it is an association registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and running the recreation club for the benefit of its members. The Association is running sports and cultural activities for the benefit of its members. While doing so, they are also permitting their members to play indoor games like, canon, chess, snooker, six colour games, coin games, dart games, computer games, etc., which are considered as games of skill.3. The petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondents not to insist the petitioner to obtain license under the Karnataka Police Act or under Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusement for playing the aforesaid skill games in the premises of the petitioner-Association, by filing this writ petition.4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the...
Vishwanath Gowda S/O Late Thimmappa Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both parties and perused the material on record.2. Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 21.8.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-'A' by which the petitioner is directed to hand over six acres of the land occupied by the petitioner situated in Block No.ll of Bajathur Village of Puttur Taluk.3. Petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He is granted with the lands bearing Survey No.229/1 (1P1) to the extent of 2.50 acres and in Survey N0.249/2B to an extent of 0.87 acres under Akrama-Sakrama scheme. Survey No.249/2B is not the subject matter of this writ petition. Though the petitioner was granted 2.50 acres in Survey No.229/1 (PI), it seems the petitioner has encroached upon the area of about3.50 acres of land in Survey No.4/1 which adjoins Survey No.229/1 (PI). Admittedly Survey No.4/1 including the area of 3.5 acres which is illegally occupied by the petitioner Is a forest land. However, the respondent No.2 having fel...
Sri Arunkumar M G S/O Sri Maheshwapappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of writ of mandamus and direct the respondents to release the sand stocked in the schedule property by declaring the seizure of sand without passing any order as illegal and without authority of law. The petitioners have also sought for direction to the respondents, to issue mineral despatch permits for transporting the sand temporarily stocked in the schedule property.2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the lessees in respect of quarrying ordinary sand after they were the successful bidders in the auction which was conducted in terms of Rule 21 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KMMC Rules'). The petitioners accordingly contend that they have thereafter quarried and transported the sand as per the terms of grant and also the legal requirement. Since one of the conditions is, that the licencees should transport only dry sand, the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »