Karnataka Court November 2010 Judgments
Sri G. Sangappa, S/O Late Neelakanthappa and State of Karnataka and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
ORDER1. W.P.No.36337/2010 and VV.P.Nos.36548-36549/2010 are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the subject matter of both the petitions is the grievance over reserving the Anagodu constituency in Davanagere Zilla Panchayat for Scheduled Tribe-Woman [ST(W)3.2. Sri Ravivaima Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri D. Nagaraj for the petitioner in W.P.No.36337/2010 submits that the constituency in question is always reserved either for Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) for the last 20 years (4 terms). The particulars of the reservation in the said constituency are put in the tabular form herein below;Year Reservation1995 Scheduled Caste2000 Scheduled Tribes2005 Scheduled Caste2010 Scheduled Tribe (Women)3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the reservation is being interchanged only between SC and ST categories to the exclusion of the other categories - backward Class-A (BCA), Backward Ciass-A-Woman [BGA(W)], Backward...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Preetam Koilpillai, S/O. Late Mr.John Victor Koilpillai, Vs Mr. Ge ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning an order dated 18.11.10 whereby the Trial Court has ordered for issue of notice on main Detection as well as I.As. 1 and 2, to the respondents.2. Mr. Adiiya Sondni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Trial Court has not considered I.As. 1 and 2 i.e., the applications seeking an order of temporary injunction =.nd hence, interference is called for.3. The Grder Sheet of the Trial Court shows that, the Court had heard the learned counsel on 15.11.10 and the matter was adjourned to 18.11.10. No hearing as such has taken place on 18.11.10. In the circumstances, the Trial Court to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner and pass an order on I.As. 14. The petitioner may seek pre-ponement of the suit from 1.1.2011 to 27.11.2010. On such application being filed, the Trial Court to advance the suit to the said date, hear the learned counsel for the petitioner, and consider I.As. 1 and 2 and pass an ord...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gopala GowdA. Vs. Sri Alur Nagappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
1. Order dated 1.9.2010 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution is recalled. Heard the counsel representing the parties2. Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order passed by the XII Addl. CMM. Bangalore in CC 11614/2006 on 6.3.2005.3. According to the complainant, he had lent a hand loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused towards winch, accused had issued a cheque drawn on ICICI Bank. Chainarujpei Branch. Bangalore. On presentation, the same was dishonored for in sufficient funds. Thereafter, after issuance of legal notice, since there was no payment, complaint came to be filed. The trial court holding that the complainant has not proved the amount due, throwing the burden on the complainant relying upon Krishna Jahardhana Bhat's case, has acquitted the accused.4. According 10 the appellant's counsel, the entire approach of the trial court is throwing the burden on the complainant to establish the fact. According to him In the case of Rangappa Vs Mohan - AIR 2010 SC 1898, while ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Supreme Chemiplast Piping Private Limited and Simon Jones Vs. Stat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
ORDER1. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners has filed a memo dated 18.09.2010 seeking conversion of Criminal Revision Petition into Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.2. The memo is taken on record and the memo reads as follows:"It is respectfully submitted on behalf of the petitioners as follows:1. The above Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.03.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-VIII, Bangalore City in Crl.R.P No.320/2004. By inadvertence, instead of filing the Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.2. It is submitted that the said error is neither intentional nor deliberate. Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to order for conversion of the above Criminal Revision Petition into the Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and equity."3. In view of this memo, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Srinivasa Reddy S/O Subbanna Vs. Sri D.Ramappa S/O Doddadyavappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner has filed a suit on 15.12.93 for partition and separate possession claiming l/3rd share against the respondent and others. The defendants filed written statement on 12.8.97. An additional written statement was filed on 13.8.01. Issues having been framed, the parties have adduced evidence. The respondent who is the 3rd defendant in the suit, has deposed as DW-1. His affidavit evidence was filed on 7.11.05 and he was subjected to cross-examination on 3.1.06, 10.1.06 and 8.3.06. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed application seeking amendment of the plaint and the same was allowed. The defendants did not choose to file their written statement. After about two and half year's' delay, an application was filed seeking permission to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. The Trial Court declined to accept the additional written statement and dismissed the application by an order dated 18.1.10, which was questioned by the respondent and others in W.P.4165/10. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri D Vigneshwara Aithal S/O Late D Venkatachala Aithal Vs. Krishna Au ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
1. These two appeals have been filed by the complaint assailing the order passed by the XIII Addl.CMM, Bangalore in CC 26155/2005 and CC 5491/2006 on 13.11.2008.2. Alleging dishonor of the cheques issued by the accused which were given towards the amount borrowed to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs due to 'stop payment' instruction, the complaint came to be filed. The cheques are issued during January 2003 for Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs each. The trial court on the complaint filed, after inquiry, having held that the complainant had admitted production ot certain document like the loan application and having opined that no such application was produced, has dismissed the complaints against which, this appeal is tiled.3. Heard the counsel representing the parties.4. It is seen, the trial court also noticed that there was a complaint filed by the accused alleging loss of cheques / theft of cheques but. However in this regard. P. Report is said to have been filed by the police. According to the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Shri P.P.Poonacha S/O Late P.P.Ponnappa Vs. Shri Nachiappan and Smt B. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner filed suit against respondents on 22.4.06 to pass a decree of recovery of Plaint B schedule land from the plaintiff, plaint C schedule land from the 2nd defendant and for costs. Respondents who are the defendants in the suit have filed written statement on 7.8.06. They also filed counter claim on 7.8.06. Reply tc the counter claim was not filed. Issues were framed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.2 under 0 8 R 6 (3) CPC seeking permission of the Court to file the written statement to the counter claim. I.A.2 was filed on 24.3.10 to which, the respondents filed statement of objections on 25.7.10. The Trial Court finding I.A.2 to be devoid of merit has passed an order, dismissing the same. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this writ petition.2. Sri B.M. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, on account of not noticing of the counter claim separately filed, i.e., the counter claim being not part and parcel of the written statement,...
Tag this Judgment!Mr Shivaram Poojary Vs. Sri Sushil Kumar S/O B Suvarna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
1. Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order, of III Addl. Sessions Judge. Mangalore in Crl.A 20/2008 on 2.3.2009.2. Alleging dishonor of the cheque issued for Ks. 1,50,000/-. After issuance of legal notice, for non payment complaint came to be filed. The trial court after inquiry, holding that there is due service of notice and also noting the admission on the part of the accused that while closing the account he had intimated the bank and returned the unused cheques but, he had not intimated about the cheque which was lost, on that ground that if really the accused had lost the cheque he would have informed 'he police or else the Bank, holding that the accused is liable ordered for paying Rs. 1.80,000/- against which in the appeal filed by the accused, the lower appellate court holding that the accused had closed the account and also opining that the complainant has not proved how he has obtained such a huge amount to pay the accused and no cogent evidence is produced, allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamurthy M. S/O. Late Sri D.R.Madhavakrishnaiah Vs. K.Narayanaswa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed suit against the respondents and others for declaration, possession and injunction. The suit has been contested by filing written statement. Issues were framed and trial of the suit is complete. After the suit was posted for hearing of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A No.2 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to appoint a commissioner to make local inspection and to submit the report. The 1st respondent/3rd defendant filed statement of objections and opposed I.A No.2. The trial court has dismissed I.A No.2 by observing that,1. The plaintiff has not taken any steps for appointment of a court commissioner for a period of 22 years.2. After closure of the evidence, the plaintiff has filed the application to appoint the court commissioner, when the suit is at the stage of hearing of arguments.3. the application if allowed, there would be further delay in getting the report and disposal of the suit and it is not proper at this stage to appoint the court commissioner....
Tag this Judgment!T.S.Manjunath, S/O. C.G.Shivanna Vs. N.Manjunath Shetty, S/O. Sri Nara ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.3879/2003 pending on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. W.P.No.31566/2010 has been filed to quash the order dated 12.08.2010 passed on I.A.No.5 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the plaintiff to amend the plaint. W.P.No.35162/2010 has been filed questioning the order dated 10.11.2009 passed on LA No.13 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint. Both the said applications having been dismissed, the plaintiff has filed these writ petitions.2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition papers.3. The point for consideration is:Whether there is any procedural impropriety and irrationality on the part of the trial court in dismissing LA Nos.5 & 13?4. The petitioner filed the suit on 05.06.2003 against the 1st respondent for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions in respect of the property shown in the schedule of the plaint. The suit and the app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »