Karnataka Court March 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 K.G. Gopala Gowda S/O Late Krishnappa Vs. the Spl. Deputy Commissi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents/State.2. Heard.3. The petitioner has sought for to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 7/authorities to consider the representation dated 30th of December 2009 and to stop shifting of the existing road mentioned in the village map adjacent to the in property belonging to the petitioner in Sy. No. 208 of Tarabanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and to declare the action of the respondents/authorities in changing the alignment of the road by encroaching upon the schedule property, as illegal and bad, and to issue any other writ.4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as per the Village map, in between Sy. Nos. 156 and 159 and between 157 and 158 and Sy. No. 208, there is an existing road. In the guise of widening the road, the respondents/authorities intend to shift the existing road by encroaching upon the property belonging to the petition...
K.H. Umadevi W/O S.N. Sunkegowda Vs. Smt. C.K. Jayamma W/O D. Honnaiah ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERRavi Malimath, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition, injunction and consequential reliefs. An application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this Petition by the plaintiff.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He contends that the trial Court has erroneously held that he is entitled to argue the matter without permitting him to amend his plaint. That the trial Court committed an error that it is unnecessary to incorporate the pleadings and hence rejected the application.3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents defends the impugned order and submits that no interference is called for. He contends that the defendant is aged almost 75 years and in the guise of the amendment the trial of the suit is likely to be delayed. He further contends that there are no merits in the ...
Sri. N. Mohan Since Dead by L.Rs. (Smt. Varalakshmi W/O. Late N. Mohan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Court below allowing I.A. Nos. 5 to 7 filed by the respondent herein - plaintiff before the Court below. Respondent has filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties against her sister and brothers. The 1st defendant, the eldest brother of the plaintiff died on 23.11.2006. The death was reported on 08.12.2006. A memo was filed on 14.09.2007 seeking dismissal of the suit as the legal representatives of deceased - defendant No. 1 were not brought on record. The Court recorded in the order sheet noting that the suit stood abated as against deceased - defendant No. 1 on 06.12.2007. Applications for recalling the order and setting aside abatement and condonation of delay in bringing the legal representatives on record were filed. The reasons assigned for the delay in filing the application was that the plaintiff-respondent herein was away on account of the...
Sri. Kuldeep Bharadwaj S/O. K.P. Bharadwaj, Packing Water Agent Vs. Yu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDER(i) The appeal is allowed.(ii) An additional compensation of Rs. 48,700/- under the heads stated herein above is awarded and same shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment.(iii) Out of the enhanced compensation 50% of the amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in any nationalised bank of appellant's choice in the name of appellant for a period of 3 years and the balance 50% with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant. The appellant shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on Fixed Deposit.(iv) No order as to costs....
Sri M. Narayana Rao S/O Late Sri Mundluru Narashimappa Vs. the State o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. Heard on Misc.W. 3438/2010 for stay.2. This application is filed seeking for stay of the auction scheduled to be held on 5-4-2010.3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 9702/2009 and the learned Government Advocate.4. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the cancellation of the license granted for quarrying of ordinary sand. This writ petition is admitted on 22-4-2009.5. The present application is filed seeking for stay of auction of the sand in respect of the lease granted to the petitioners that is scheduled to be held on 5-4-2010. It is averred that if the auction is not stayed, the writ petition would become infructuous, and if ultimately the cancellation of license is held to be legal, the petitioner would not get any remedy.6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the lease period granted to the petitioner is over and the auction is being conducted since the lease period is over....
The Chairman, Board of Trustees, Mahadeshwaraswamy Devasthanam by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Sri. B.R.S. Gupta, learned Counsel accepts notice for respondents No. 3 to 5. Learned Government Advocate and the learned Counsel for the respondents are permitted to file the Memo of Appearance/Vakalath within a period of four weeks.2. Considering the short point that arises for consideration, the petitions are taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner herein is calling in question the order dated 22.10.2009 passed in R.P. Nos. 566, 569 and 579/2006. The said order is impugned at Annexure - 'B' Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein were the petitioners in the said Revision Petitions, wherein they had assailed the endorsement dated 27.04.2006 issued by the Secretary, RTA, Chamarajanagar, wherein the permit No. 28/94-95 held by the petitioners therein came to be renewed for a period of ten years from the dates indicated therein.4. Learned Co...
H. Venkataramanappa S/O Late Neeraganti Hanumappa and Yellappa S/O Lat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 3.6.2007 - annexure D in RRT (2) DAS 10/2007-08 certifying the entries in the name of the 3rd respondent in respect of land in Sy. No. 131/3 measuring 1.25 acres of Narayanakere Village, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore; to restore the mutation entries in the names of the petitioners in respect of the said land to the said extent; to quash the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 17.1.2008 confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner; to quash the order of the Tahsildar at Annexure F and to declare that the sale deed executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of Smt Lakshmi/5th respondent as null and void.2. Sy. No. 131/3 measuring 1.25 acres is said to be the property granted in favour of the father of the petitioners pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka Religious & Charitable Inams Abolition Act by order dated 17.12.1963. The name of the petitioner's father...
Ramamurthy S/O Byrappa, Bdo Officer Vs. State by Krishna Raja Police S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERJawad Rahim, J.1. Petitioner is the sole accused facing charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He is in judicial custody and seeks bail. State has opposed the relief sought.2. As could be seen from the prosecution papers one Mr. Prakash, driver of the Autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-09 B-1228, lodged a report alleging that while he was near Old Milk Dairy at Nanjangud Road, the petitioner along with one old man boarded the auto as passengers. While he was taking them to destination as indicated, enroute the petitioner is alleged to have picked up quarrel with old man and compelled him to stop at particular place. When auto was stopped he dragged the old man out indulged in quarrel and then after physically manhandling the old man pushed him into a ditch. Consequent to which, he suffered injuries and died.3. Soon thereafter petitioner left the auto and boarded the passenger bus and tried to escape. The Complainant having witnessed the incident followed th...
Smt. Sharada Gopala Singh W/O Sri N.M. Gopal Singh, Vs. Sri M. Diwakar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERRavi Malimath, J.1. In the suit of the petitioners to declare that the Will dated 14.5.1998 as null and void and for partition, an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking amendment was rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the present petitions.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the persons sought to be impleaded are the children of the 1st wife of the husband of the lat plaintiff. It is submitted that the 1st plaintiff being a second wife was not aware of the existence of the 1st wife and the children borne, out of the marriage. Hence, the application is made in view of the fact that they too have an interest in the schedule property.3. Counsel for the respondent is absent. In the circumstances, I have heard the counsel for the petitioners.4. The trial Court while considering the application rejected the same on the ground that the children of the first wife are not necessary parties to the suit, since the marriage is stated to be a void marr...
K. Nooralla Shariff S/O Abdul Khader Sab Vs. Sri Kempanna S/O. Dodaiah ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
L. Narayana Swamy, J.1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order passed by the Court below in O.S.9082/1996 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The appellant has filed I.As.9 and 11. In I.A.9, the prayer is not to put up any construction on the disputed property and the prayer in I.A. 11 is in respect of injunction. The Trial Court by its order dated 10.6.2004 rejected both the I.As. against which, he preferred the present appeal where he has challenged the order passed on I.A.11 and filed another MFA 6870/2004 against the order passed on I.A.9.2. The 3rd respondent who is defendant No. 3, the contesting party in O.S.9082/1996 has filed a memo before this Court stating that he will not put up any construction in the suit schedule property except fencing the property to prevent possible trespass by the third parties, On recording the submissions made by the 3rd respondent, an order has been passed by the Court by restraining him from putting up an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »