Karnataka Court March 2010 Judgments

Mr. G. MoidIn S/O Abdul Khader Vs. Smt. Nafisamma W/O Late G. Hameed a ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This writ, petition is filed by the plaintiff by challenging the order, dated. 27.01.2009 passed on I.A.V in O.S. No. 43/2007 by the V Addl. Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K.2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff who has filed O.S. No. 43/2007 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant respondents for alienating the plaint A schedule property to any person other than the plaintiff. During the pendency of the said suit, an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint by adding another relief. The said application was contested and the Trial Court has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred this petition.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application filed for amendment, as the cont...

Sri. Ambareesh S/O Shivaiah Vs. Deputy Commissioner and the Commission ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Learned Govt. Advocate to accept notice for respondent No. 1 and file his memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.2. Considering the nature of disposal of the petition, there is no need to issue notice to respondent No. 2.3. Petitioner is calling in question the notification dated 18.01.2010 published in the Gazette on 20.1.2010, The grievance of the petitioner is that despite there being a strong presence of the constituents belonging to SC category in the area relating to Kodihalli Gram Panchayath the same has not been reserved for SC category. It is in that context, the grievance is put forth. Petitioner also contends that in this regard, the petitioner had made representation dated 3.3.2010 bringing this fact to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner who has not responded to the said representation.4. Learned Govt. Advoeate would state that the notification made at present is in accordance with law and the reservations have been made keepi...

Sri. R. Prabhakar S/O. Late S. Ramaswamy Vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanaga ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 19.03.2010. The memo reads as hereunder:In view of the affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent, the Petitioner seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the writ petition. Hence, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn, in the interest of justice and equity.2. In terms of the memo, the petition stands disposed of....

Smt. Ananda Lakshmi W/O Late Sri. Srinivas Murthy and Sri. Poorna Chan ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioners/legal representatives of the defendant in O.S. No. 10271/2006 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore city, are before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 18.08.2009 passed on I.A. No. I in the above said suit at Annexure 'E'.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has filed the suit against deceased Srinivasa Murthy on 23.11.2006 though the defendant died on 02.10.2006. Under such circumstances, the suit filed against the deceased/defendant is bad in law. But the Trial Court erred in allowing I.A. No. I filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC, permitting the respondent/plaintiff to bring L.Rs of the defendant on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision reported in 1963 (2) MLJ 341 (C. Muthu v. Bharat Match Works, Sivakasi).3. In view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is ...

The Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Education Dept., Kar ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERI) The appeal is RFA No. 788/2009 stands dismissed.II) Parties to bear their own costs....

Sri A. Kewalachand S/O Late Sri J. Anraj Vs. the Commissioner, Bruhat ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Sri Ramanjaneya Gowda, learned standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 to accept, notice and file vakalath within a period of four weeks.2. The petitioner is seeking for a mandamus to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 31.12.2009 (Annexnre-A), representation dated 27.1.2010 (Annexure-E) and 4.2.2010 (Annexure-F) and take suitable action against Sri Purohit Narayanlal.3. The case of the petitioner is that the said Sri Purohit Narayanlal is a tenant in respect of the portion of the property which belongs to the petitioner and situate at No. 33, ward No. 21, Bangalore 23. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said Sri Purohit Narayanlal is running a unit engaged in the manufacture of Stainless Steel Utensils. According to the petitioner, such activity cannot be carried on without proper licence from the concerned authorities. In this regard, reference is also made to Section 443 of the Karnataka Municip...

Mr. Syed Abdul Khader Vs. Mr. K.O. Verghese.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3691

ORDER1. The plaintiff in the Court below has questioned tin: correctness and the legality of the order passed in Misc. Petition. No. 43/2000 dated 02.01.2010 by the Principal District Judge. Hassan.2. The facts are as follows: The petitioner herein instituted a suit in O.S.Mo. 137/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.J, Hassan for recovery of money in a sum of Ks. 2.40..308/-together with interest and cost. On account of establishment of Civil .Judge (Srd.n.) Court at Sakaleshapura. the said suit came to be transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.J, Sakaleshapura and the suit came to be renumbered as O.S.No.64/2007. During the pendency of the suit before the Civil .Judge (Sr.Dn.J. Sakaleshapura. the defendant is said to have tiled two applications, one for production of a photocopy of agreement dated 29.12.1997 which contained the original endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar, Sakaleshapnra and another application to lead farther evidence. The Trial Court: a Hi is not...

Ramamurthy S/O Mestru Kaverappa Vs. State of Karnataka by Anekal Polic ...

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 the consent of both the sides.2. Heard the arguments of Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, the learned High Court Government. Pleader for the respondent.3. The only accused in Sessions case No. 159/09, pending on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore, has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking setting aside of the Impugned Order dated 18.3.2010 passed in the said case, rejecting his application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, seeking recall of PW16, the Tahasildar, who conducted inquest proceedings in the said case.4. On careful reading of the said Impugned Order, it could be seen that PW16 was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused, as the learned Counsel appearing for the accused could not appear in the said cas...

Shivamurthy @ Shivu S/O Revanappa Vs. State by Sorabha Police

Court: Karnataka

ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. Though this matter is listed today for admission, having regard to the nature of the relief sought for in this petition, it is taken for final disposal by the consent of both the sides.2. Heard the arguments of Sri. B.S. Hadimani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.3. Order dated 28.1.2010 passed in Sessions Case No. 157/08 by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimoga, rejecting the application of the petitioner-accused filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeding recall of PWs. 1, 2, 5 & 9 for further cross-examination is sought to be set aside.4. Sri. B.S. Hadimani, learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that unfortunately the Counsel representing the accused before the Trial Court has not. stated in the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C the reasons for recalling the said witnesses and therefore, the Trial Court passed the Impugned Order rejecting th...

Smt. Lakshmi Wife of Late Sri Peddanna Vs. the Deputy Commissioner (Fo ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Mr. N.B. Vishwanath, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2.2. An authorization was issued in favour of the petitioner's husband under the provisions of the PDS Control Order, 1992. Suffice it to say that during the currency of the licence, petitioner's husband died. Hence, on compassionate grounds the petitioner makes an application for grant of authorization. The present writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 1 to consider the application for grant of authorization on compassionate grounds having regard to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 18954/2009 decided on 13th July 2009.3. Apparently, this petition is filed in anticipation that the application filed by the petitioner for authorization on compassionate grounds it, likely to be rejected.Petition stands disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for authorization on companiona...