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.
Sri. Thomas S/O C.P.Paul and ors Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Prabhakar W/O Prab ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Respondent No.1 filed O.S.133/01 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Nanjangud, against the petitioner for a decree of declaration, recovery of possession, manse profits and consequential reliefs. The defendants have filed written statement dated 15.3.10 and have contested the suit. Respondent No.2 filed I.A.4 on 17.2.10 under 0 1 R 10(A) read with S.151 CPC to impaled him as an additional plaintiff. The application though was opposed, by filing statement of objections dated 15.3.2010, the Trial Court has allowed I.A.4. Aggrieved, the defendants 2, 4, 5 and 6 have filed this writ petition.2. Sri Hamanth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends '.hat the Trial Court without noticing the facts and circumstances of the case in the correct perspective and without noticing the willful suppression of material facts by the applicant, in disregard of the provisions under 0 1 R 10(2) CPC, has allowed T.a.4 and the order impugned is irrational and illegal.3....
Akbar Pasha @ Akbar Vs. Lakshmamma and the Branch Manager. Oriental In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 22.09.2005 passed in MVC No.62/2004 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM & .MACT, Mandya, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 43.700/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization as against the claim made by the appellant for a sum of 7,63,400/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant has presented this appeal seeking enhancement on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.3. In brief, the facts of the case are as follows:The appellant claims to be aged about 19 years, working as Assistant in Gurjari shop, getting salary' of ?2100/- p.m. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That, at about 9 p.m. on 7.10.2003, when he was proceeding in a Hero puch vehic...
Smt. M.S.Premalatha and Ms. M. Soumya Vs. Sri H.K.Nagendra S/O.Sri H.R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed OS No.26838/2009 against the 2nd respondent/defendant in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, to declare that the construction of the building on the plaint schedule property is as per the sanctioned plan dated 26.11.2008 and for permanent injunction. The defendant in the suit has filed written statement and has contested the suit. The petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to permit them to come on record as defendants 2 & 3, which prayer was opposed by the plaintiff by filing statement of objections dated 06.08.2010. Upon consideration of the matter, the trial court has rejected the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have filed this writ petition.2. Sri Subbi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the construction of the building by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property is in violation of sanctioned plan issued by the BBMP and that, the petitioners had complained t...
Dr.Prabhakar Mohan Sumant Vs. Canara Bank,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This is defendant's appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 03.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.6/1991 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Chikkaballapur.2. The parties herein are referred to by their rank in the Court below for the sake of convenience.3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:Plaintiff case is defendant approached them for credit facility in a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- which was sanctioned on 15.02.1998. In this behalf defendant executed a promote agreeing to repay the loan with interest at 6.5% p.a., over and above the RBI minimum rate at 16.5%, compounded quarterly. The said loan was secured by deposit of title documents pertaining to suit schedule properly. The equitable mortgage was created by plaintiff under letter dated 15.02.1988 evidencing deposit of title deeds with list of documents at schedule "A" and description of the property at schedule "B". The defendant is Managing Director of M/s. Adap (Pvt.) Limited. The said company had also av...
Mohammed Ali, S/O. Kareem Saab Vs. K.Ameer, S/O. Najamddill
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Plaintiff being aggrieved by an order passed in the suit holding him liable to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty with regard to an agreement of sale dated 24.10.96, has filed this writ petition.2. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, a perusal of the impugned order would show that the Court has not clarified as to whether the possession of the property was delivered to the plaintiff prior to the execution of the instrument in question or simultaneously with the execution of the instrument in question and hence, interference is called for.3. I have perused the instrument in question, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C. There is a clear recital therein with regard to the delivery of the possession of the property by the vendor to the purchaser and such delivery is under the very instrument and there is no acknowledgement therein of prior delivery. The recital is to the following effect:4. Since the possession of the prop...
Smt. Siddamma W/O Late V.Masiyappa and ors Vs. Sri Venkataswamy S/O Ra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2001 passed in OS.No.234/1989 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dnj, Hiriyur confirmed by judgment and decree dated 6.8.2002 in RA.No.36/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chitradurga. for the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:-Plaintiffs are owners of suit schedule properties having purchased the same from the members of family of Ugra Narasimhaiah. Defendants are the owners of property, which is situated adjacent to the suit schedule properties. The properties, which are part of this dispute are several bits of land situated in Alur village, Hiriyur Taluk. The said properties are situated to the east of V.V.Channel, which is ninning from north to south. On the eastern side of V.V.Channel there is existence of PWD Road which proceeds from south to north and takes a right turn towards...
Krishna B.C., S/O Sri Chikkalinge Gowda Vs. the Vice Chancellor. Unive ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The point in issue in these writ petitions is covered by a decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.22235 to 22256/2010 disposed3. In the light of the said order, the impugned notices at Annexure 'C\D' and 'E' dated 17.9.2010. 8.10.2010 and 17.9.2010 respectively are treated as show cause notices calling upon the petitioners as to why the degree certificate issued to them earlier should not be withdrawn. The petitioners are granted three months from today to file their objections to the show cause notices. The University shall not take back the original marks cards from the petitioners pending disposal of the inquiry. The Enquiry Committee of the University is directed to hold an enquiry and submit its recommendations to the Registrar of the University. Thereafter, the competent authorities of the University are directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioners are permitted to produce the attested copy of t...
M/S. Rajvee Enterprises, and Mr.Rajamani, Vs. the Debt Recovery Tribun ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. In these petitions, petitioners herein are impugning the order dated 19.06.2008 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, and also notices issued under Section 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.2. Counsel appearing for respondent No 2 would submits that in respect of an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, appeal provision is available to the petitioners herein. In the light of alternative remedy being available, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of this, counsel for respondent No.2 would also cite the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in 1(2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110].3. Heard the counsel for petitioners and counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the aforesaid judgment. In the light of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, ...
Sri.N.Chandrashekar. S/O.Late Krishnappa Vs. Sri. Rangaswamy. Son of M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.2.2010, passed by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Misc.No.62/2009.2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the application for restoration of O.S.No.7946/2003.3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed this appeal.4. In brief, the facts are: The appellant had filed suit in O.S.No.7946/2003 for permanent injunction. The issues were framed on 3.12.2008 and the case was set down for evidence on 6.1.2009 on 6.1.2009, the appellant and his counsel were net present. Therefore, the suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant filed application for restoration of the suit. It has been dismissed. Therefore, this appeal.5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2003 and issues were framed on 3.12.2008 and the case was set down for evidence on 6.1.2009 and on 6.1.2009...
Sri.Chandrashekara, S/O.Late Sanriava Gowda Vs. Smt Savithri. W/O. Lat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. The learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents l. 2. 5, 7 and 8 have filed a joint memo dated 4.11.2010 which reads as under:-The Appellant and Respondents filed the Joint Memo as follows: -1. The Respondents 1 to 6 have filed the suil for partition and separate possession oj the suit schedule properties before the Civil Judge, Madikeri bearing O.S.No.87/1990. The preliminary decree is passed holding that, the Respondents 1 to 6 are together entitle to get their 9/64"x share in the suit schedule properties. Similarly the Appellants No. 1.3.4.9 and respondent No.9 and the Appellants No.5 to 8 together being the LR's of the deceased Sharer Upendra are entitle to get 9/64"- share each in the suit schedule properties and appellant No.2, is entitle to get 1/64"' share in the suit schedule properties. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the shares decided by the trial Court.2. That, after passing the preliminary decree, the Appellants filed an appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »