Karnataka Court March 2010 Judgments

Shri G.N. Thimmegowda S/O Shri Narayanappa Vs. Smt. Lakshmi W/O Shri A ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents though served, have remained absent and the appeal is disposed of finally at this stage itself.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has preferred this appeal challenging the refusal on the part of the trial court to grant an order of temporary injunction on I.A. 1 filed by the appellant. Submission made is that the agreement of sale was entered into, between the parties and as per the terms of the agreement, appellant had paid Rs. 10 lakhs as advance amount, but the defendants have refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court had dismissed the application on the ground that the suit land is likely to be acquired by the KJADB for the purpose of Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor plan. Therefore, submission made is that, interest of the appellant be safeguarded as far as the advance money is concerned.3. In view of the further submission made by the learned Counsel for the a...

Pushpalatha N.V. W/O Nemraj Vs. V. Padma Widow of Vasantha Kumar D.N.,

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, granting her a decree for partition holding that she is entitled to 1/20th share in A, B and E Schedule properties and not 1/5th share in the suit properties as claimed by her.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The subject matter of the suit is five items of immovable properties. Two are urban properties and three are landed properties, which are more particularly described in the Schedule as, A, B, C, D and E schedule properties.4. The case of the plaintiff is that her father, Sri D.N. Vasantha Kumar was the owner of all the suit schedule properties having acquired the same under the registered partition deed dated 29.03.1967. He died on 31.12.1984, inte state. He left behind him, his wife V. Padma - the first defendant herein, the plaintiff and second defendant, the daughters and defendants-3 and 4, sons, as the le...

Gregory Patrao and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secre ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR201OKAR3980

ORDER1. The subject mailer of these writ petitions are lands bearing Sy.Nos.58/1 measuring I acre 30 cents. 92/1 measuring I acre 18 cents and 92/2 measuring 42 cents of Kalavaru village. Mangalore Taluk. Dakshina Kannada District. Thomas Patrao. the father of petitioner Nos.1, 3 to 10 and husband of petitioner No.2 was the owner of the said lands. The 2" respondent had issued a notification at Arfhefcuife IT dated 2.12.1996 under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. I960 (for short the Act") proposing to acquire the lands bearing Sy.Nos.58/1 measuring 1 acres 51 cents. 92/1 measuring 51 cents. 92/2 measuring 30 cents and 58/3 measuring 7 cents of Kalavaru village. Mangalore Taluk. Dakshina Kannada District along with certain other lands in the same village. Notice was issued to Thomas Patrao under Section 28(2) of the Act. Thomas Patrao lu'd tiled objections opposing the proposal for acquisition of the lands. The objections were over ruled and the declarat...

Mahajan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Smt. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERS.N. Satyanarayana, J.1. This is judgment debtor - tenant's revision challenging the order dated 03.11.2009 in Execution No. 34/2009 on the file of the Court of 14th Additional City Civil Judge (CCH 28), Bangalore on I.A. Nos. 2 to 5. However when the matter is taken up for final hearing today in the presence of Counsel for both parties, the Counsel for petitioner has restricted his prayer in this revision to the order passed by the trial court against its application in I.A. No. 3, which was filed under Order 21 Rule 26. CPC seeking 'to stay of further proceedings of the present execution proceedings, which is pursuant to the exparte decree dated 26.9.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court in O.S. No. 9242/2007'. The dismissal of which is challenged in this revision.2. The facts leading up to the filing of this revision are that the petitioner herein is judgment debtor in Execution No. 34/2009 which is filed by the respondent herein to execute the decree of ejectment passed in O.S. No...

Unilever Australasia Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Jayant ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERS.N. Satyanarayana, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 6362/2009 pending on the file of 18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, challenging order dated 09 12.2009 dismissing its application filed under Sections 20 and 21 r/w Order VII Rule 11(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The parties to this revision are referred to by their ranking in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.2. The facts leading to this revision are as under: Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, 1st plaintiff is carrying on business in manufacture and sale of Deodorant Body Sprays, Shaving Creams, After Shave Lotions, After Shave Moisturising Gels under the brand name and trade mark of 'INSTINCT', which is registered in its name initially in the year 1992 under trade mark Nos. 583418 and 809510 under the then Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, subsequently, registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 und...

Sri Radheshayam Soni, S/O Mangilalji Soni and ors. Vs. Union of India ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal is by the applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal and compensation was sought by the husband and children of deceased Lakshmi Devi on the footing that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in train No. 6529 - Udyan Express from Pune to Bangalore City and on the night intervening 27/28.6.2000, said Lakshmi Devi met with an untoward incident or accidental fail in the early hours of 28.6.2000 and following the death of Lakshmi Devi being confirmed after her dead body was identified by her husband, the appellants filed the claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation.2. The said application was contested by the respondent - Southern Central Railway by contending that the death of Lakshmi Devi was on account of she being found mentally unsound and it is also very strange that a person travelling by Poona-Bangalore Udyan Express would get up in the dead of the night at 2.20 a.m. and was found walking along the track. Therefore, the said de...

Srinivasagowda S/O. Narasegowda and Vs. Smt. Sannamma W/O. Late Chikka ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The owner and driver of the scooter involved in the accident have filed appeal in M.F.A. No. 1133/2003 praying to set aside the judgment and award made in M.V.C. No. 824/1998 dated 08.11.2002 or in the alternative to declare that the driver had valid driving licence as on the date of accident and to saddle the liability of the owner on the Insurance Company and direct the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants.2. M.F.A. No. 5498/2003 is filed by the claimants in MVC No. 824/98 under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2,20,200/- to Rs.8,55,000/- and direct the Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation to the claimants, by modifying the judgment and award dated 8.11.2002 made in MVC No. 824/1998 on the file of Addl. Claims Tribunal/Civil judge (Senior Division), Srirangapatna,3. Since these two appeals are directed against one and the same judgment and award made in MVC No. 824/1998 on...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Agrosynth Chemicals

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The Revenue has come up in this appeal, challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which has been affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in ITA. No. 31/Bang/2001 dated 28th December 2004.The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:2. The assessee is in the status of a firm. For the assessment year 1995-96, the return was filed on 31st October 1995, declaring an income of Rs. 22,55,710/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. During the course of assessment, it was noticed that a sum of Rs. 1,26,97,540/- had been accrued to the assessee towards the obligations performed which had been credited to the Partners' Current Account. Therefore, there was an order to re-open the assessment. Accordingly, notice was issued.3. The Revenue found that the assessee had transferred its undertaking to M/s. Agrosynth Chemicals Private Limited for a sum Of Rs. 1,50,00,000 and the act...

Smt. Poosanama W/O Late Parthasarathy and Vs. D. Robert S/O D.V. Paul ...

Court: Karnataka

Ravi Malimath, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2003 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. NO. 22/1999 allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed this appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to, as par their rank in the Trial Court.3. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking for a decree against them to declare that he is the owner of the suit schedule property, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property and for a direction to remove the illegal construction put up by them on the suit schedule property.4. The defendants denied the suit claim. The Trial court having framed 5 issues, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which came to be allowed by holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and granted an injunction restraining t...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., City Branch by Its Manager Vs. Babu Sapal ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in MVC 820/2003 on the file of the MACT-III, D.K., Mangalore, against the appellant and others, claiming compensation on account of death of one Damodar who sustained fatal injuries in the motor vehicle accident and later succumbed. The claim petition was contested by the appellant. After trial, the MACT has allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 8,09,000/-. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the said award.2. Sri O. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, there is duplication of award under the head loss of dependency' and also in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- under the head 'loss of income' for a period of 36 months at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. i.e., loss during the laid up period. Learned Counsel submitted that, there is excess award on account of wrong approach on the part of the MA...