Karnataka Court March 2010 Judgments

Sri M. Krishnamurthy S/O. Late P. Muniyappa Major Rep. by His Gfa Hold ...

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common order, dismissing Miscellaneous Petition. No. 778/2009 and allowing Miscellaneous Petition No. 35/2010.2. We find from the said order, at paragraph 26, the learned Judge has observed as under:26. A part from this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s). 19-21/2009 has passed three orders on 29.9.2009, 1.10.2009 and 14.12.2009. The Hon'ble Apex court its order dated 14.12.2009 clearly and in categorical terms has directed in the following words 'we also direct that no Court would pass any other order in this respect' and has further directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka to ensure that the orders are carried out in letter and spirit.3. Therefore, the learned City Civil Judge restrained himself from passing any order in the miscellaneous proceedings and passed an order making interlocutory attachment. A copy of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Co...

South City Group Housing Apartment Owners' Association ® represented ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed allowing I.A. No. 7 filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure thereby granting permission to the 2nd defendant to play the DVD produced in the case.2. The petitioner is the 11th plaintiff in the Trial Court The plaintiffs have sought for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit road and further restraining the defendants from putting up compound wall on either side of the suit road.3. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the construction of the compound wall taken up by the 2nd defendant was likely to cause obstruction to their free access to the apartments. The defendants have denied the case of the plaintiffs and have produced several photographs to show that the assertion made by the plaintiffs was not correct They have also produced a DVD containing video graph of the apartments and the adj...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Geethadevi W/O. Late Prathapa ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERa) The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.b) The judgment and award passed by the VII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore in MVC No. 1892/2000 dated 1.9.2005 is hereby confirmed.c) The amount in deposit if any before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith, No order as to costs....

Sri B.S. Anand Kumar S/O B.S. Subbegowda Vs. Sri A.R. Arunachalam S/O. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A. No. 8 filed by the defendants under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 CPC. read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act.2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has appointed a hand writing expert as Court Commissioner to ascertain the signatures of defendants in the disputed agreement dated 22.05.2008 with the help of the admitted signatures of the defendants.3. The plaintiff petitioner herein has instituted a suit in OS No. 11/09 for specific performance of the agreement dated 22.05.2008. Under the said agreement, the first defendant is alleged to have agreed to sell standing trees in the lands along with the second defendant for themselves and the first defendant as a General Power of Attorney holder of Annamalai Estate.4. The defendants have filed the written statement contending that the assertions made in the plaint regarding the execution of the agreement are totally false, It i...

South City Group Housing Apartment Owners' Association ® represente ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed allowing I.A. No. 7 filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure thereby granting permission to the 2nd defendant to play the DVD produced in the case.2. The petitioner is the 11th plaintiff in the Trial Court The plaintiffs have sought for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit road and further restraining the defendants from putting up compound wall on either side of the suit road.3. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the construction of the compound wall taken up by the 2nd defendant was likely to cause obstruction to their free access to the apartments. The defendants have denied the case of the plaintiffs and have produced several photographs to show that the assertion made by the plaintiffs was not correct They have also produced a DVD containing video graph of the apartments and the adj...

Sri Haridas Naik S/O Chandranaik Vs. Hanchinamane Gadriyappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3529

ORDERThe petitioner Xos. 1 to 1 i herein have challenged in this petition the correctness of the order dated24.10.2009 passed in CO. No. 379/2009 (PGR No. 19/2009) by the learned Civil Judge fdr.Dn.) & JMFC. J againr (hereinafter relerrcd to as "Trial Court" for short), issuing process against these petitioners to: the offences under Sections 3 43, 147, .148. 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/W Section 149 oi IPC.2. Though i Ins matter ,ni/.anee of any offence or: the complaint, shall examine upon both the complainant ami (he witnesses present, if any and further lie is required to record I tie subsume.** of the examination in writing and same lias to be signed by the complainant and the witnesses. This is a specific procedure com (-'iii pits Led in the matter of filing of complaint, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. He furl Iter submitu.d thai filing of an affidavit eauno1 partake the character of the sworn statement as contemplated under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, Section 200 oi Cr.P.C. specifically re...

P. Mailvaganam @ Babu S/O Late Peethambaram Vs. A. Kannan S/O A. Anca ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 16.06.2009 passed in HRC No. 10114/2008. By the said order, the Court below has allowed IA-V and directed the petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of rent from 1.10.2006 to 31.2.2009 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner while (sic) the said order is that the Court below has not properly appreciated the materials on record. It is contended that the Court below was not justified in relying only on the document at Ex.P17 to come to the conclusion that the said rents are due. The learned Counsel would point to the agreement of lease produced at Annexure A to this petition to indicate that under the said document what has been agreed is the lumpsum rental and no monthly amount as claimed is payable. It is therefore contended that the Court below could not have come ...

Sri. Teerthesh S/O Sri. Venkataiah Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secre ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 12.7.02 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belur Taluk, Hassan District at Annexure 'B' and to quash the impugned order dated 1.1.08 in appeal No. 698/02 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore at Annexure 'D' and also to issue writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner to conduct enquiry and spot inspection to consider Form No. 7A filed by the petitioner and for any other appropriate orders.2. Petitioner claiming that, he is the tenant in respect of 1 acre 26 guntas of land in Sy. No. 28/1 situated at Savasihalli village, Madihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk; he was giving 5 pallas of ragi per year as a gutta to the owner and that his name is also entered in the pahani records in column No. 12(2) as on the relevant date; the owner was not in the habit of giving any receipt for having received the gutta; he is the member of the joint family; the land in quest...

Dr. Rahul S. Patil S/O. Shankar Patil Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of H ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. In these three writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent - University to reconsider the entire evaluation challenge to the key answers with reference to the prescribed text and other references made by the petitioners under their application for challenge to the keys, after setting aside the corrected key answers as notified in terms of Annexure F and for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent - University to redo the consideration of the challenge to the Keys and for such other reliefs.2. The petitioners have appeared for post graduate entrance test (PGET) for the year 2010 in medical disciplines. Petitioners wrote the written test on 07.02.2010. The key answers provided by the paper setter was notified to the petitioners. The petitioners noticed that the key answers provided by the paper setter were wrong and therefore they made a challenge evaluation to 18 questions. On the basis of challenge evalua...

Lisa Apparels (Pvt.) Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, Mr. R. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. Though this matter is listed today for admission, having regard to the nature of the relief sought for, it is taken for final disposal, by consent of Sri. B.C. Thiruvengadm, the learned Counsel for the petitioners - accused.2. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, the petitioners, who are accused in CC No. 21851/2009 (PCR No. 16650/2009) on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short), have sought for quashing of entire proceedings in the said case.3. Stated in brief the case of the respondent - complainant as averred in his complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.PC before the Trial Court is as under:(a) The complainant - company has been dealing in garment accessories. The 1st accused has been a Company represented by the 2nd accused, who is its Managing Director. During the year 2008-2009, the 2nd accused, for and on behalf of the 1st accused, purchased the gar...