Karnataka Court November 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.
The Director of Income-tax Vs. Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. Heard learned counsel on admission of the appeal.2. In thi2 case the admitted facts are that the respondent assesses - trust established a trust by way of trust, deed dated 23.01,2008. The assessed sought for registration under Section 12A on 31.10,2008. The assessed was called upon to furnish certain details and after seeking certain time ultimately on 9.12.2008 details were furnished. Further details also came to be given on 8.01.2009. On 16.03.2009 a show cause notice was issued calling upon the assessed to furnish audited accounts as also material indicating the actual activities conducted by the trust.3. Apparently such details cams to be furnished by 25.09.2009 and also on 30.03.2009 wherein assessed fairly indicated that they had not yet commenced any activities of the trust. Not being satisfied with this reply Director of Income-Tax (Exemptions) refused to grant registration and consequently recognition under Section 80G was also refused by orders dt: 12.04.2009. Aggrieved b...
Gowramma, W/O Lateswamy and ors Vs. B.Manjunath, S/O Bogappa,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. The brief facts of the case:On 29.3.2008, when the deceased Swamy along with others were pedestrians and proceeding from Manchanahalli - Machnapura village towards their native place Chottanahalli to attend a function, a lorry bearing registration No.KA 51-5553 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, his wife and two minor children and parents filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of 5.72,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.5. As there is no dispute regarding death of the...
Sri M.Gopal Reddy S/O Late Rm.Repdy Vs. the Commissioner Bangalore Dev ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. The is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.3,2005 in O.S.No.8657/2000 on the file of the XVI AddL City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.2. For the convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking in the Trial Court.3. The suit to one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants its agent B, or anybody on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.The case of the plaintiff is that, his great grandfather one Patel Nanjareddy was holding an inam land and after the Jnam Abolition Act, the land was re-granted in favour of Patei Nanjareddy. Patel Nanjareddy died leaving behind hto son Nanjareddy who inherited the suit schedule property who was the only son. He had only one daughter by name LakBhrnidevamma who was pre-deceased. Plaintiff is the son of Lakshrnidevaimna. After the death of Nanjareddy, plaintiff inherited the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.169/4 and he cons...
Vittal Saltan Vs. Manjappa Poojary Son of Thyampa Major
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. The appeal coming on for admission is considered for final disposal.2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court seeking recovery of possession of property described as Schedule 'B' to the plaint. The suit was contested on the ground that though 'A' schedule property was granted by way of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in favour of the plaintiff, 'B' schedule property did not form part of the same. Secondly, the order of the Tribunal was under challenge before this Court in writ proceedings and that there was no encroachment whatsoever. The plaintiff had described the 'B' schedule as a portion shown in red, in the rough sketch produced along with the plaint. The plaintiff also sought to rely upon a survey report indicating there was encroachment by the defendant to the extent of 'B' schedule property The trial court, however, has dismissed the suit on the ground that without examining the surveyor who had furnished the survey report and without proper description...
Smt.B.Sudharma Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 10.6.2009 issued to him by R-l B.D.A. and it was conveyed to the petitioner by that endorsement, that the request for allotment of site No.230 measuring 40' x 60' in J.P.Nagara 8,h Phase, 2nci Block, Bangalore, cannot be considered and aggrieved by the said rejection of the petitioner's request for allotment of the aforementioned site, this writ petition is preferred.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally allotted site No. 730 in the year 2000 and as the said site was found to be at a down gradient, the petitioner, therefore, made a request for allotment of another site. Accordingly, the petitioner's request was accepted and site No.230 was allotted to the petitioner and it was in J.P.Nagara 8th Phase, 2nd Block, Bangalore. In respect of the said site, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount ofRs.3,51,000/-. Yet, for the reasons best known to it, R-l B.D.A. has issued the i...
Sri. M. Rama Reddy Vs. Munishamappa, S/O Late Marappa,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent2. The facts of the case are as follows:The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. The appellant was the defendant before the trial court for the sake of convenience. The suit was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 28-5-1990 in respect of the suit property. It was the plaintiffs case that as on the date of the agreement the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the Fragmentation Act, for brevity) was in force and as the suit property was covered under the said Act and as the sale transaction could not be registered, it was agreed that the sale deed would be registered upon the repeal of the said Act. The Acj stood repealed with effect from 5-2-1991. It was the case of the plaintiff that immediately on the repeal of the Acj., demands were made on the appellants to execute and...
Mr Shivaram Mallik and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) :1. The petitioners belong to village Moodushedde The grievance of the petitioners is, that respondent No.4 i.e. Pilikula Nisargadhama Society is running a Golf Club as also an Amusement Park, on agricultural land. It is submitted, that the aforesaid activities are wholly impermissible in law.2. We are satisfied, that the instant challenge at the hands of the petitioners does not arise in public interest. The photographs placed on the record of this case demonstrate, that the club house, administrative block, as also, the other buildings, including amusement and water parks have been in existence for quite sometime. Whilst, the learned counsel for the petitioners acknowledges, that they have been there since 2005, the photographs depict that they may have been there for twice as much time.3. It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.l to 3. That the society is managed under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commission...
M H Srinivas S/O Late Sri. M. Honnaiah Vs. the Omental Insurance Co Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. By the impugned order, the court below has allowed I.A.No.6 filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 herein. The records reveal that the petitioner sustained certain injuries in the accident that occurred on 29/11/2008. According to him, he has sustained bicondylar fracture of Left tibia and other multiple abrasions over the back of left elbow. In support of his contention, he mined before the court, the orthopedic surgeon of Victoria Hospital The said doctor has assessed the disability of the petitioner at 15%, the said doctor is cross-examined by the respondents, and thereafter LA.No.6 is filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, the copy of which is produced at Annex.D. In the said application, advocate for respondent No. 1 has averred that the claimant be examined by a qualified orthopedician to ascertain the actual injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner. The said application is allowed by the impugned order.2. The impugned order cannot ...
Nettur Technical Training Foundation Vs. the Special Lannd Acquisition ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. Writ petitioner claims ownership of plot Nos.40 and 40A, Electronic City, Konnappana Agrahara, Bangalore South Taluk, and it appears the special land acquisition officer and competent authority. National Highways, Bangalore had also issued notice of passing an Award for a sum of Rs. 1,55,23,990/- in favour of the petitioner on the premise that an extent of 5,771 sq. meters of land in plot Nos.40 and 40A which, had been acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway belonged to the petitioner and it is entitled for this amount of compensation, but the grievance of the petitioner now is that even when such notice had been issued to the petitioner for passing of the Award. M/s. Keonics -original land owner from whom the petitioner had purchased subject land had raised certain objections complaining that the petitioner was purchaser from said M/s. Keonics. Had not acquired full title to the land and therefore the amount should not be disbursed in their favour etc.2. It i...
B.S. Narendra Kumar Vs. Vimalanathaswamy Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. Respondents have filed O.S.No.74/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.,) at Nagamangala, against the petitioner for the relief of recovery of possession, manse profits and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner has filed his written statement. Based on the pleadings, the trial court has raised the issues. Issue No.5 is with regard to the valuation of suit property for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The said issue having been treated as preliminary issue was answered by the trial court on 03.03.2010. It was held that, value of the suit property is Rs.86,500/- and the court fee paid is insufficient and the plaintiffs were directed to pay the deficit of court fee. However, it was held that, the court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendant has filed this writ petition questioning the finding of the trial court with regard to jurisdiction of the court to try the suit.2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the record.3. The suit was institu...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »