Karnataka Court March 2010 Judgments

Mr. Venkateshan S/O. Late Mahalingam Vs. Mr. H.B. Boregowda S/O. Mr. K ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN. Ananda, J.1. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 21345/2008, pending trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act').2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are as follows:The respondent had filed O.S No. 661/2003 against petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest at 1.5% per annum on the basis of on demand promissory note stated to have been executed by petitioner in favour of respondent. The petitioner did not contest the suit. Therefore, suit, was decreed exparte and decree was put to execution. In the execution proceedings, warrant for attachment of moveables of petitioner was issued. When bailiff came near the house of petitioner, petitioner issued two cheques for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each in favour of respondent. When the cheques were presented, they were not honoured as petitioner had given stop payment instructions to his banker.3. The learned Counsel for petitioner woul...

Sri. Saibanna Takali S/O. Peerappa Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Dev ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ42

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioner was allotted a site bearing No. 1727 measuring 9 x 12 meters, at 9th-Block, Further Extension of Sir M. Visveswaraiah Layout, Bangalore, as per the allotment letter dated 7.2.2004 at Annexure-A. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and the site in question was allotted to the petitioner under the said category. Since the petitioner did not pay the sital value within a period prescribed as per the relevant Rules at the time of allotment, the site was cancelled as per the order at Annexure-C dated 30.09.2004. The petitioner received an intimation from the BDA dated 20.07.2005 (Annexure-D) stating that three years period has been granted for payment of balance of sital value. He has deposited the entire sital value on 23.03.2007 as per Annexures-E and F respectively. He made a representation dated 20.12.2008 as per Annexure-J requesting the BDA to withdraw the order at Annexure-C. The BDA has issued an endorsement as per Annexure-L dated 7.2....

B. Suresh Baliga S/O Damodhara Baliga, Vs. Smt. Malakini W/O H. Mukund ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRavi Malimath, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential injunction. On his death, I.A. No. 5 was filed under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application. Hence the present petition.2. Sri. Krishna Moorthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He contends that on the death of the father they are entitled to come on record as the legal representatives and to implead five persona as defendants 3 to 7. It is contended that that sorts being the legal representatives are required to come on record and since all the legal representatives are not supporting the plaintiff, they have been arrayed as defendants.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 defends the impugned order and submits that there is no error committed by the trial Court tha...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Reptd. by Its Regional Manager Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In this appeal by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act wherein, the Insurance Company has raised the question of correctness of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the appellant Insurance Company and also on the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.2. There is a delay of 29 days in preferring the appeal. An application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by an Officer of the Insurance Company.3. Notice had been issued to the respondents, first and the second respondents being the claimants before the Tribunal, the third respondent is the owner of the vehicle causing the accident and the fourth respondentbeing the mother of the deceased who had been arrayed as respondents in this order in the claim petition.4. In the wake of efforts to effect service on the third respondent - the owner of the vehicle being not fruitful, this Court in te...

K.V. Ninga Setty S/O Late Vyramudi Setty, Retired Health Supervisor an ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The learned Counsel for the appellants has filed a memo to the effect that the writ appeals may be dismissed as having become infructuous. Hence these writ, appeals are dismissed as having become infructuous....

Sri Kapithulla @ Kaputha @ Mohammed Faik S/O AneeruddIn Vs. the Orient ...

Court: Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant in MVC No. 2498/2003 on the file of MACT, Bangalore, (SCCH No. 13) has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation.2. The appellant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) for the personal injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred at about 5.00 PM on 21/11/2002 as a result of the wheel of the lorry bearing registration No. HR-38-E-4837 in which he was working as a cleaner, running over his left leg while he was attending to cleaning and greasing work of the lorry by lying down under it in front of Sri. Vinayaka Tyre Works, Tumkur Main Road, Nelamangala, on account of the driver of the lorry suddenly moving the vehicle. According to the claimant, immediately he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Bangalore, where ...

Ningajamma W/O. Nanje Gowda Vs. Nanje Gowda @ Chotanna S/O. Naje Gowda ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This review petition is filed for review of the order passed by this Court on 4/1/2006 in RSA. 19/2005. The review petitioner was respondent in RSA. 19/2005. There is a delay of 1,378 days In filing the review petition.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioner.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that observation has been made in the order passed by this Court on 4/1/2006 stating that it is open to the appellant to work out his remedy by filing review petition since he is the owner of the property in question, having purchased the same from the defendant No. 1 and that it is well settled that if the appellant is in possession of the 'B' schedule property, as far as possible, possession should be honoured while considering the equitable partition in the final decree proceedings and the appellant in the appeal - 1st respondent herein is trying to make use of the observations made by this Court in the order passed on 4/1...

Sri. N. Narasaraju Son of Late S. Narasimhaiah Alias Chikkana Rasimhai ...

Court: Karnataka

H. Billappa, J.1. The appellant, the respondents 1 and 2 and their learned Counsel are present before the Court, They have filed a compromise petition, under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC which reads as under:The Parties to the above appeal submit as follows:1. The Appellant and the respondents 1 & 2 submit as follows;2. The Parties to this compromise petition are described as described in the trial court.3. It is submitted that the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession with respect to the suit-schedule properties in O.S. 1058/96 before the 9th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore and the said suit was decreed by Judgment A Decree dated 4.11.2008 wherein the plaintiff was granted 1/3rd share in the A, B & C schedule properties and it was ordered to be partitioned by meres and bounds.4. The above appeal is preferred by the first defendant The plaintiff is the brother's son of the defendants 1 & 2 and having regard to the relationship of parties, the parties h...

H.L. Vijayakumar S/O. Sri H.S.L. Narayan and Mr. S. Pradeep S/O. Sri. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides and perused the petition papers.2. Respondent herein filed a complaint in PCR No. 388/2002 on the file of the JMFC-II Court at Hassan against the petitioners and 2 others alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The said complaint has now been registered as C.C. No. 890/2004. In that complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners herein are the partners of firm M/s Gateway Suvama Arcade, B.M. Road, Hassan and towards discharge of their liability, one of the partners of the firm viz., Mr. S.S. Ravishankar, issued a cheque bearing No. 577805 dated 5.10.2002 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank Ltd., Hassan branch in favour of M/s Vardhaman Telecom, which is a proprietary concern or the complainant. The said cheque having not been honoured by the banker on which it was drawn, after issuing the statutory notice and in view of non payment, the complaint was l...

A.S. Raghuvendra, S/O A.L. Satyanarayan, Proprietor Anur Glass and Ply ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Petitioners are brothers. 1st petitioner claims to be the proprietor of a business concern known as M/s Anur Glass & Plywood situated at M.B. Road, Kolar. According to them, they are carrying on business in Iron & Steel, Cement, paints, glass and plywood and other construction materials. 1st petitioner is a registered dealer under VAT Act as well as CST Act and he is assessed to income tax. Similarly, 2nd petitioner is running a similar business at Brahmin Street, Kolar under the name and style of Nagaraj Traders, he is also assessed to income tax and also registered dealer under VAT Act and CST Act. According to them, in the usual course of business, they are purchasing iron and steal from various re-rolling mills and also from other dealers throughout Karnataka. Similarly, petitioners were also purchasing steel from M/s Eshwar Trading Company of Tumkur and from 5.7.2007 till the date of filing the petition 1st petitioner had purchased steel in a sum of Rs.90...