Karnataka Court March 2010 Judgments

K.N. Vishwanathan Nair S/O K.K. Narayana Nair and Mrs. V.G. Vasanthi W ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRavi Malimath, J.1. In the suit by the respondent seeking release of Rs. 7,05,077,65p/- with interest at 18% and consequential reliefs I.A.14 was filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order 26 Rule 10A r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to issue a Commissioner for examination of the signature on Ex.P-1 with standard and specimen signature of the 1st defendant and fee opinion. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said application. Hence, Writ Petition No. 36459 and 36460/2009.2. I.A. No. 15 was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall PW1 for further examination. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said application. Hence, Writ Petition Nos. 36461-62/20093. Regarding Writ Petition No. 36459 to 36460/2009 the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He contends that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application in as much as the ...

A. Lakshminarayan Herale S/O Suryanarayana Herale Represented by His G ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Sri. Ramanjaneya Gowda, learned standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 to accept the notice and file the vakalath within a period of four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondent No. 3 is unnecessary.2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent No. 2 to consider and take necessary action on the complaint lodged by him on 16.02.2010 as at Annexure - 'E'.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are the owners of the property, which are adjacent to each other. The petitioner contends that respondent No. 3 has undertaken certain construction activity in his site, which is adjacent to the property belonging to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said construction is contrary to the building bye-laws of B.B.M.P., and the same is being done without obtaining the sanctioned plan from the B.B.M.P.4. Learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 wo...

Janatha Bazar, a Unit of Karnataka Consumers Co-operative Federation, ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERThe appeal is dismissed....

Smt. Sarojamma W/O Late B.V.S. Narayana Setty Represented HereIn by Po ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERC.R. Kumaraswamy, J.1. The appellants and their counsel are present. The respondents and their counsel are present. Compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed. Execution of the compromise petition is admitted by the parties before the Court.2. The compromise petition reads as under:1) The above appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal of RA No. 18/2002, dated 22.1.2005, passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Kolar.2) With the intervention of well-wishers, the parties to the above Appeal have decided to settle all disputes in respect of the entire properties of the family bf late B.V.S. Narayana Setty and Son, amongst themselves on the following terms:a) The 1st respondent agrees to pay a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) to the Appellant No. 2 - Smt. Rajeshwari Rathnam, towards her share and also towards the share of mother, the deceased Appellant No. 1 - Smt. Sarojamma, ...

Mallashetty A.R. S/O. Rudrashetty Vs. the Manager, the National Insura ...

Court: Karnataka

H. Billappa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15-10-2008, passed by the MACT. Channarayapatna, in MVC. No. 163/2005.2. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 85,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement.4. In brief, the facts are: That on 11-6-2005, at about 10.30 a.m., the appellant was proceeding on his bicycle, on Hagare-Belur Road. At that time, the driver of the car bearing No. KA-05-P-7243 drove the car at high speed and dashed against the appellant. As a result of that, the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed this appeal.5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended ...

Sri. Rama Poojary Since Deceased by His Lrs. (Smt. Rakku Poojary W/O R ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner had filed form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Kundapur, before 30.6.1979, seeking for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the property bearing Sy. No. 72/1A measuring 4 acres and 14 cents. The said application came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal, against which, writ petition was filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, since the Appellate Authority was constituted, the matter stood transferred to the Appellate Authority. Later, on the abolition of the Appellate Authority, once again C.P. was filed by the petitioner seeking for conversion of the appeal into writ petition and accordingly, it was convened and pending before this Court. The prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the order of the Land Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and to direct the Land Tribunal to grant him the land in Sy. No. 72/1A measuring about 4 acres and 14 cents and such other reliefs.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and ...

C. Shamanna S/O Late K. Channaiah Vs. the Commissioner, Bruhath Bangal ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Sri. T. Jayaprakash, learned standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 to accept notice for the said respondents and file his vakalath within a period of four weeks from today. Notice to the respondents No. 3 and 4 is unnecessary at this stage considering the nature of disposal of this petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents No. 3 and 4 are putting up certain construction on the building bearing property No. 68/1, 5th Main Road, 9th Cross, Ramachandra Agrahara, Chamarajapet, Bangalore-18. It is his grievance that such construction is being put up without the approved plan and contrary to the Building Bye-laws of B.B.M.P. The petitioner is said to have filed appropriate representations as at Annexures-'C' and 'C1' bringing this conduct of the respondents No. 3 and 4 to the notice of the respondents No. 1 and 2. The petitioner states that despite the same, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not taken any action in this regard and t...

Sri V. Krishnappa S/O Sri Veerabhadrappa Vs. the State of Karnataka Re ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. Heard on Misc.W. 3436/2010 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. 9700/2009 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....

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Represented by Its Chief Manager of Fina ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondents and file Memo of Appearance within a period of four weeks.2. The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 26.02.2010 passed under Section 69 of the KVAT Act, 2003 in relation to the assessment for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2009 whereby rectification is refused; The said order is impugned at Annexure - 'G' to the petitions.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order would contend that the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Enforcement 7, who has passed the said order infact has not appreciated the correct position. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that even though the documents relating to labour charges and high seas sales charges were available, the authority has not looked into the same and on the other hand, has made observation that the documents have not been produced. It is therefore contended that the very order passed in re...

Karnataka Valmeeki Nayaka Mahasabha (R) and Another Vs. State of Karna ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3149

ORDER1. This writ petition is filed in the public interest to consider the representation vide Annexure-A dated 15.10.2009 in accordance with law and for a direction to remove the second respondent from the post of Minister, who has allegedly failed in his duty to safeguard the welfare of the persons belonging to schedule caste and schedule tribes in Karnataka State. Certain other allegations are also made against the second respondent in the writ petition.In the representation at Annexure-A, the petitioners have prayed the Chief Minister for removal of respondent No.2 from the post of minister based on soma allegations.2. The relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. h Minister is appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister under Article 164 of the Constitution of India. The Ministers shall hold the office during the pleasure of the Governor. The wordings in the Article 164 are clear answers to the petitioner's prayer in the writ petition.3. Article 1...