Karnataka Court March 2010 Judgments

Anjnappa S/O Sri Gopaliappa Vs. Regional Transport Authority by Its Se ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Petitioner having made 3 applications dt. 18.8.2006 for grant of fresh Stage Carriage permits for route Menasinahalli to Bangalore; Attibele Cross to Bangalore; Bangalore to Attibele Cross, when considered along with 97 other applications for similar such Stage Carriage Permits by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore (Rural), resulting in a common order dt. 1.12.2006 granting the applications, when called in question by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation in Revision Petition Nos. 143/2007, 114/2007 and 121/2007 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal for short 'KSTAT, the order was set aside and the Revision Petitions allowed by common order dt. 31st December 2009, Annexure 'A' Hence these Writ Petitions.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleading and examined the order impugned, the KSTAT set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore (Rural) holding that;(1) That the Region...

Akruti City Ltd. Formerly Known as Akruti Nirman Ltd., Represented by ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. At a stage after the completion of the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the parties and when the Court was seeking clarifications from the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, the writ petitioner has filed this application on 10.03.2010, for leave of the Court to place on record by way of additional plea and documents in support of the reliefs in the main petition. The additional facts, according to the applicant are in relation to the Balance sheet as on 31.3.2004 and 31.3.2006 of the respondent-company; the partial occupancy certificate dated 18.5.2005; financial criteria for qualification as per RFQ, comparative statement on the basis of papers produced as Annexure-'R15' and memo of the 5th respondent filed on 10.12.2009; FAR area calculation of Part-C Residential Block of 5th respondent said to be issued by Partner of Tharesh Associates, and a statement showing parking amount of Garuda Mall (BBMP), after deducting management fee.2. The a...

Smt. Shamala W/O R. Krishnareddy Vs. R. Srinivasa Reddy, S/O. Late Ram ...

Court: Karnataka

H. Billappa, J.1. The appellant, the respondents 1 to 6 and the learned Counsel for the parties are present before the Court. They have filed a compromise petition, under Section 89 R/W Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC which reads as under:1. It is submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for relief of partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the Suit Schedule Property bearing Sy. No. 7/3 of Kothanur Village, Bangalore South Tq. Measuring 2 acre 10 gunte. bounded on East by: Property belonging to Bylamma and Siddappa. West by: Property belonging to Bajantri Naryappa. North by: Property belonging to Siddappa and South by: Road: against appellant and the third respondent. The Schedule Property was the joint family property of the respondents. The joint family consisted of their grand father Thayappa, their father Sri Ramaiah his children namely, Sri Krishna Redely, Sri Srinivas Reddy and Sri Ramesh, Redely and three daughters namely. Smt. Sarojamma, Smt. Paroathamma and...

Sheenappa Gowda @ Venkappa and Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Belthan ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN. Ananda, J.1. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 211/2009 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 201 read with Section 34 IPC and also for offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Government Advocate for Stale.3. The learned Counsel for petitioners has made available the copies of the documents filed under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C.4. The facts narrated in the first information, statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and also the contents of Forensic Science Laboratory report are as follows:-The deceased Babu Mugera belonged to schedule caste. He was a native of Balalu Village. Smt. Girija (CW-2) was his wife. Certain bit of Government land, which was adjacent to the land of the Accused No. 1, was in unauthorised occupation of the deceased and it had been regularised in ...

New India Assurance Company Ltd., Represented by the Divisional Manage ...

Court: Karnataka

Aravind Kumar, J.1. Though the matter is listed for admission, by the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, as the matter is of the year 2007.2. The Insurance Company is questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed by MACT-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City in MVC No. 4664/2005 dated 26.04.2006.3. The facts in this appeal are not in dispute and hence, are not being dwelt upon.4. Though other grounds are urged in memorandum of appeal by Sri R. Jaiprakash, learned Counsel for the appellant would fairly submit that only ground that would be urged for consideration is with regard to the deduction made by the Tribunal in respect of personal expenses of deceased. Sri R. Jaiprakash would contend that personal expenses of deceased ought to have taken at 1/3rd. However, the Tribunal has deducted 1/6rd, considering the number of dependents as on date of the accident, he would hasten to odd in view of law kid down ...

G.K. Chandramouli S/O Karabasappa and ors. Vs. the District Registrar ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings of the meeting held on 2.9.2009 and 23.9.2009 as per Annexure-F and G, respectively and consequently the acceptance of the resolution of the second respondent-Committee, by respondent No. 1. Petitioners have also sought for quashing Annexure-F, J and K, by which the first respondent has registered the Governing Council.2. This is the 7thround of litigation between the parties, inasmuch as the litigation pertaining to the second respondent-society has seen this Court for seven times. The litigation between the parties is mainly relating to enrolment of the members of the second respondent-society. On an earlier occasion, WP. No. 21560/2005 (GM-RES) was filed before this Court questioning the enrolment of 40 members to respondent No. 2-society. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court observed thus:Accordingly, the following:...

D.N. Nagesh S/O D.S. Nanjundaiah Vs. D.S. Nanjundaiah S/O Srikanthegou ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRavi Malimath, J.1. The respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking permission to sell his share of property in order to celebrate the marriage of his daughter in a suit filed for partition and separate possession by the respondents/plaintiff. The trial Court by the impugned order permitted the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 to sell his share of the property m Survey No. 748/2 to the extent of 45 guntas and in Survey No. 1316/C2 and 1316 to the extent of 3 acres 22 guntas and was also directed to furnish accounts with regard to the expenses of marriage and also the sale of the properties and its sale consideration Hence the present petition by the plaintiff.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. He submits that the share of the defendant No. 1 alone could be permitted to be sold and not the other extent of lands, since the suit for partition and separate possession is sti...

V. Kumar, Vs. Sri Abdul Bashith S/O. Late Abdul Jabbar,

Court: Karnataka

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 9.11,2005 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 614/1999 by the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. The relevant facto for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellants' father had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent herein on 28.3.1983, Subsequently, the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent to sell the suit schedule property on 19.1.1990. Since the appellants and their father were in possession of the same, a suit for possession was filed by the 1st respondent against the appellants herein and the said suit was decreed exparte. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants fled Miscellaneous Petition Fo.614/1999 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC R/w Section 151 of CPC requesting to set aside the said judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 3691/1997 dated 10.11.1998 and to restore the suit on the file of the Court. The said miscellaneous petitio...

Sri. V.V. Subba Rao, Son of Venkatakrishnaiah Vs. Mr. Abdul Shukur, So ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ30

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property having perfected his title by adverse possession and tot consequential injunction against the defendants.It was the plaintiff's case that he and his ancestors are agriculturists and residents of Yedragodu locality from time immemorial. It is claimed that the father of the plaintiff had obtained land in survey No. 850 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas and survey No. 881 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas on moolageni lease from one Thimmappaiah under the registered document dated 13.4.1927. Survey No. 852 of Mavinakere measuring about 4 acres 2 guntas, which was Government land and which situated to the north of survey No. 850 and survey No. 851, was fenced by the father of the plaintiff alongwith surve...

Sri B.S. Narayana @ Narayana Gowda S/O Somegowda Vs. the State of Karn ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The petitioner has; called into question the endorsements, dated 29.11.2006 (Annexure-D) and 17.6.2007 (Annexure-J) issued by the third respondent Assistant Commissioner.2. The farts of the case in brief are that the petitioner's mother Smt. Subbamma was a Baggarhukum Saguvalidhar of the land measuring 4 acres at Sy.No.169 of Heggudlu Village. She made an application for the regularization of her unauthorised occupation of the said land. The Committee for the regularization of the unauthorised occupation allowed her Form No. 53 application in its meeting held on 11.3.2003. Meanwhile, she passed away on 5.4.2003. The petitioner's endeavours to have the Saguvali Chit issued in his favour went in vain. The Assistant Commissioner, vide his endorsement, dated 29.11.2006 directed that the transfer of land at Sv. No. 169 measuring 206 acres 7 guntas (226 acres 35 guntas minus 20 acres 28 guntas) be mutated in favour of the Forest Department. Consequent thereto, ...