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.
Shamalsha Girdhari Mineral Co. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
ORDERJ.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral)1. The petitioner was granted a quarrying license on 03.06.2000. whereby it was allowed to extract pink granite from an area of land measuring 18.22 acres. A similar quarrying license was granted to the petitioner on 24.05.2002. for an area of 11.34 acres. And yet another quarrying license was granted to the petitioner on 06.08.2002, for extraction of pink granite from 4.32 acres of land.2. The land over which the petitioner was granted the aforesaid three quarrying licenses, was patta land which was also described in the revenue records as agricultural land. Despite the fact that the land was described as agricultural land, the petitioner commenced quarrying activities over the three pieces of land referred to herein above, without seeking conversion thereof for non-agricultural use in terms of the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). Since the respondents did not insist on the non-eonver...
Sri.K.B.Allamya Sab S/O Buden Sab Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The learned session Judge while slanting Misc.No.32/2010, had directed that petitioner shall surrender before the concerned LO within fifteen days from tile date of order which condition is not one of the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner, due to ill-health could not surrender before the Investigating Officer in terms of the conditions imposed by learned Sessions Judge and the Investigation Officers has not arrested the petitioner.2. On consideration of the order made by the learned Sessions Judge, I find that condition imposed by learned Sessions Judge that petitioner shall surrender before the concerned I.O is not supported by reasoning.3. The learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner would makehimself available before the Investigating Officer, forthwith. His submission is recorded.4. In the result, I pass the following order: Petition is accepted. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer forthwith. He is grant...
Radhamma, and ors Vs. Nimesh.P.Jethmalani, S/O. S.V.Jetmalani, and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal filed by the appellants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19/07/2005 passed in MVC No. 4738/2004 by the Additional Judge. Court of Small Causes and Member. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-V, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-5). (Hereinafter referred to as tribunal for short).2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of 78,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the appellants for a sum of ?10,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Nagaraju, in the road traffic accident.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The appellant No.1 is the mother, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the sister and brother of the deceased Sri. Nagaraju and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section '66 of M.V. Act. claiming compensation of 10.00,000/-. On account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contendin...
M/S.S.K.Consumer Products Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of City of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Appellant is the plaintiff before the court below, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20-7-2005. Made in O.S.No. 1539/1999 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore preferred this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of X. 1.97.960/- together with cost and current interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 17-5-1997 and also for other reliefs. In the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that pursuant to the tender notification issued by the defendants for the supply of Raymond Woolen Blankets, the plaintiff submitted his tender. Since the plaintiff was the lowest tendered, the tender submitted by the plaintiff was accepted. As per the agreement entered into between the parties, the plaintiff has to supply 6018 Raymond Woolen Blankets to the respondent at the rate of .370/- per item. As per the agreement, the plaintiff has totally supplied 6018 Raymond Woolen Bl...
Papamma and ors Vs. the Principal Secretary Revenue Department Governm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
JUDGEMENTJ.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. During the course of hearing of the instant writ appeal today, learned counsel for the appellants desired to limit his prayer. For the aforesaid purpose, he invited this Court's attention to paragraph-3 of the impugned order dated 28.08.2009 passed by this Court while disposing of WP No.30609/2004.However learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have continued inpossession of the property wherein they have put up constructions. In this regard, he invited the attention of the Court to the revenue records standing in the name of A.Muniyappa which are produced along with writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-society strongly contends that possession of the land has been taken and the State Government has handed over possession to the society. He has placed reliance on the notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Act in this regard vide Annexure R.4. It is unnecessary to go into this question. Petition...
Sri. K.Chengama Raju Vs. Sri K.Chandra Raju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Respondent has instituted suit against the petitioner. Suit summons was ordered to the defendant on 06.11.200S returnable by 16.12.2008. On 18.12.2008 appearance was put in for the defendant by his learned Advocate. The Txial Court adjourned the suit till 13.03.2009 for filing of the written statement. Written statement was not filed on 13.03.2009. It was taken that, the defendant has no written statement to file and the suit was adjourned. The defendant filed written statement on 21.08.2009 along with an application to condone the delay and for acceptance of the written statement. The Trial Court has d is missed the said application (IA.No.4). Aggrieved, the defendant has filed this writ petition.2. Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that, the impugned order is wholly irrational and illegal. I-earned Counsel points out that, the defendant is aged about 80 years, has undergone a bypass surgery and records in proof of the same having bee...
Sri. P. Kumar Vs. Sri. Mayanna, and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner in both these petitions is the decree holder and sought a decree for possession in O.S.No. 10179/2006 against the first respondent herein. Respondents 2 to 5 are the daughters of the first respondent whereas the sixth respondent herein is the son of first respondent.2. I will refer to the parties as per their rank before the Court below for the purpose of convenience.3. The petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No. 10179/2006 against the first respondent herein seeking possession of the house property bearing Municipal No.81/3 old No.81. 4th Cross. Sriramapuram Bangalore-560 021. After the institution of the suit, the summons was issued to 'he defendant. He remained absent. He was placed expert and an expert decree for possession was granted by the Court on 28-11-2007 and the copy of the judgment has been produced at Annexure-D.4. The petitioner after obtaining the decree for possession filed Execution Case No.434/2008 seeking the execution of the decree in O.S No....
Smt. Savitha D/O. Vishnu Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filed impugning the order dated 27.09.2004 and 29.03.2004. This is at Annexure J and Annexure - F, respectively.2. The brief facts leading to this Writ Petition are as under:The petitioner herein who is presently working as Assistant Teacher in Higher Primary School, Lingaraj Camp, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal district got into service of the fourth respondent by virtue of an appointment order dated 05.12.1994 vide Annexure - B. Wherein she was appointed for the said post as a person belonging to Group - E i.e., a person belonging to Backward Special Group having annual income of less than Rs.8,000/- as contemplated in G.O. No.SWL 66 BCA 86, dated 13.10.1986.3. Thereafter, the third respondent herein by its order dated 29.03.2000 canceled the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner holding that she does not belong to Backward Social Group coming under Group - E and as such she is not entitled to continue in her job, which she has secured pursuant to cer...
Sri K H Ramakrishnappa S/O Chikka Huchappa Vs. Sri.G Narayanaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Initially, the petitioner filed OS No. 5297/2006 for decree of permanent injunction. Subsequently, the suit came to be converted into one for declaration of title and permanent injunction, after amendment of the plaint, the petitioner filed a separate valuation slip and paid additional Court fee valuing the property as agricultural land under Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. The Trial Court noticed the fact that the suit property is within the limits of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.Therefore, in the impugned order, the Trial Court directed the petitioner to file fresh valuation slip and to pay the Court fee on the basis of actual market value of the property. Hence, this writ petition.2. Sri.N Sonne Gowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of R Ananda Vs NanjundRswa my and Others reported in 2007(3) KCCR 1686, contends that though the suit land is within the limits of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike the sam...
Agni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M R Lakshmanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDERJ.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral)1. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner states, that the process of removal of trucks and machinery commenced yesterday and it is in progress he fourth states that there lias been no obstacle in the said activity at the hands of the accused/respondent. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner further states, that the entire process will be completed within a day or so.2 The accused/respondent is present in Court, in pursuit. Learned counsel for the accused/ respondent, having obtained instructions from the accused/respondent states, that there will be no obstruction at the hands of the accused/respondent, till all the equipments stand removed,3. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the accused/respondent, we are satisfied, that it is not necessary to retain the instant petition on Board, any further. Rule issued against the accused/respondent is, accordingly, discharged,4. In case there is any obstruction in the removal of...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »