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.
K.B.JayadevappA. S/O KanakappA. Vs. Smt. Parvathamma D/O Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The Respondent No.3 who has been served remains unrepresented.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellant was the defendant before the trial court in a suit for declaration whereby the respondent-plaintiff had sought that she be declared as the legally wedded wife of the appellant herein and that the appellant be injected from contracting a marriage with any other person. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent and the same having been challenged by way of an appeal the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The respondent had challenged that judgment by way of a second appeal before this court, which in turn was allowed. The appellant had challenged the same by way of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition having been allowed, the apex Court set-aside the judgment passed by this Court and remanded the matter to this court for consideration as...
Sri.Vazeer Khan, S/O Late P.M.Khan Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner herein, Member of respondent No.4 has filed this writ petition seeking direction to respondent No. 1 to toke appropriate decision pursuant to the report at Annexure-"J" as contemplated under Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and also for quashing of Annexure - "J". The aforesaid writ petition is filed by petitioner as Member of respondent No.4, which according to him is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961, vide registration certificate No.56/73-74 South Canara.2. In the said proceedings, respondent No.4 has filed objection talking up a contention that respondent No.4 is a Wakf and as such registered under the Wakf Act and the management, functioning, conducting of its business, its accounting are governed by Wakf Act, 1995 and it is also the case of respondent No.4 that in a meeting, held in the year 2005, they have taken a decision that respondent No.4 cannot simultaneously maintain registration under two ...
Sri Balasubramanya @ Balendra Venkata, Vs. Sri K.Manjunatn S/O. Late G ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. 3rd defendant in O.S.2941/05 pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, has filed these writ petitions questioning the order dated 16.7.10 passed on I.As. 13 and 14 by the learned Trial Judge. The 13th plaintiff - G. Krishnappa, has passed away on 25.6.99. His son Sri K. Manjunath, filed application on 2.6.10 under O 22 Rules 2 and 3 CPC to permit him to come on record as the legal Representative of the deceased plaintiff No.13. I.A. 13 is an application filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing I.A.14. The petitioner has filed objections. The Trial Court has allowed both the applications, though the inordinate delay has not been explained.2. The impugned order keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of BALWANT SINGH (DEAD) v. JAG DISH SINGH & OTHERS reported in AIR 2010 SC 3043 has to be held as irrational. However, there are other plaintiffs in the suit and the suit having not abated, for the inordinate d...
Hemachandra and .H. Ramesh Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Petitioners have sought for quashing the notification dated 12.2.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent in so far as it fixes the guidance market value in respect of the schedule lands situated in Sy.No.1 (Sy.Nos.1/30, 1/31, 1/32, 1/33, 1/34, 1/35, 1/36, 1/39, 1/40, 1/42, 1/43, 1/44, 1/46, 1/47 and 1/P2), Gullattikaval Village, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagar District at 14,4,00,000/- per acre. They have also sought for a direction to the third respondent to register the sale deeds as per the guidance value which was in force in the year 2005 at 60,000/- per acre.2. The records reveal that the petitioners have entered into an agreement in the year 2005 to purchase the lands situated at Sy.No.1 (Sy.Nos.1/30, 1/31, 1/32, 1/33, 1/34.. 1/35, 1/36, 1/39, 1/40, 1/42, 1/43, 1/44, 1/46, 1/47 and 1/P2), totally measuring 32 acres in Gullattikaval Village, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, for a consideration of 60,000/- per acre with the land owners. Those ...
The Commissioner Bangalore Deyeiopment Authority Vs. Nagadevanahalli R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.12.2009 in O.S.No.3510/2002 passed by XVI Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore City dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the written statement.2. First respondent filed O.S.No.3510/2002 against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 for decree of permanent injunction. Though the petitioner entered appearance before the Trial Court, they failed to file the written statement within the time stipulated under law. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application to condone the delay in filing the written statement and to receive the written statement on record. Respondent no.l - plaintiff opposed the application. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court passed the impugned order rejecting the application fded by the petitioner on the ground tlut the application is supported by memorandum of facts of the counsel and not the p...
Smt. Rathna Vs. the State Bank of Patiala
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 8.1.2010 passed in O.A.No.367/2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka, which is an appealable order.2. In view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy for the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, by way of an appeal, this Court declines to entertain the writ petition. The Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others in SLP(C)No.10145/2010, reported in (2010)8 SCC 110, has ruled that the High Court shall not ignore the availability of statutory remedy under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 22.6 of the Constitution of India, for passing the orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by way of an app...
M Lakshmikantaiah Vs. S R Bain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner in the above petition has sought for setting aside the order dt. 14-10-08, passed in C.C.No.21113/04 by the XX Addl. ACMM. Bangalore, dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution and sought for restoration of the proceedings to the file. 2. During the pendency of the petition, parties have got the dispute with regard to cheque bearing No.042908 dt. 16-2-03 issued for Rs.50,000/-, which is the subject matter of C.C.No.21113/04 settled amicably. The terms and conditions of settlement are reduced into writing by way of memo and Oie memo signed by the petitioner and his Counsel is taken on record.3. In the memo it is stated, petitioner has received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the respondent towards full and final settlement of the cheque and therefore, the criminal petition may be dismissed as not pressed.Accordingly the criminal petition is dismissed as not pressed....
Sri Guru @ Nanjegowda Son of Rame Gowda Vs. Sardar Pasha Son of Dastag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation avyarrisd by the Tribunal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. The brief facts of the case:On 33.09.2005, when the claimant was travelling along with another (carrying coconut in a Richer lorry bearing registration No. KA-4-7599, near Metkere Gate, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against another timber lorry bearing registration No.CRQ-7505 coming from Channarayapatna. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he tiled a claim petition before MACT, Channarayapatna. Seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs. 1,35.000/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appea...
Sri B Moth Hal Ranka Vs. Smt Shoba Devi W/O Sri. Mangalchand,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Petitioner and the respondent are the partners, the copy of the, partnership deed is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. The partnership business was agreed to be carried on under the name and style of M/s. Bhandari Motors or such other name, as the partners may deem fit. According to the petitioner, he has leased the property to the partnership firm for 7,500/- rent per month and that the partnership firm should give the petitioner 30,000/- annually. Since the said amounts are not paid, he issued notice to the respondent. Respondent in-turn made counter claim against the petitioner by asking more money than asked by the petitioner. However, disputes arisen between the parties are not settled, ultimately a notice came to be issued by the petitioner calling upon the respondent to appoint arbitrator. In the very notice, the petitioner has appointed an Arbitrator on his behalf.2. The partnership deed contains arbitration clause. Clause 18 of the partnership deed reveals that any di...
Sri. R Sadashiva, S/O. Late K.S.Ramga Subba Vs. Sri. H.N .Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. These petitions have been filed challenging the order allowing the applications of respondent Nos.1 (i) and 1 (ii) filed under Order 22 Rule 3 r/w. Section 151 of CPC, under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act for bringing them on record as legal representatives of the deceased -plaintiff petitions are as under:The deceased-Sri.H.N.Reddy had instituted that suit for redemption of mortgage against the petitioners and respondent No.2 and 3. Diunng the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Sri.H.N.Reddy died on 08.02.2005. In the carcimistarjcxs, respondents 1(i) and 1 (ii) submitted an application to condone the delay in filing the application for bringing them on record by setting aside the abatement end in support of the said application respondent No. 1(i) sworn to an affidavit stating that she is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and that the deceased died on 08.02.2005 leaving behind her and her son as only the legal representatives to su...
- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »