Karnataka Court April 2010 Judgments

M. Ashwath and ors. Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ286

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioners have sought for to issue writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 95 of 2007-08, dated 30-4-2009 at Annexure-A and to restore the order passed by the 2nd respondent in R.A. No. 405 of 2004-2005 and for such other orders.2. Heard.3. Petitioners are claiming to be the children of one Jayamma, who is said to have purchased the properties in Sy. Nos. 16/3 and 17/2 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas and 1 acre 13 guntas respectively situate at Gollahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk from one Joseph during the year 1968 and the said Joseph is said to have purchased the property in question from the 4th respondent during 1967.4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the properties in question has been sold by the erstwhile vendor namely, respondent 4 in favour of one Joseph and thereafter, from Joseph, the petitioners' mother has purchased and as such, the question ...

Sri B.S. Subba Raju Son of Sri Shayama Raju and ors. Vs. Smt. Jamuna W ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAravind Kumar, J.1. This is a defendants revision petition questioning the order dated 12.03.2010 passed on I.A. No. 8 whereunder the said interlocutory application filed under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking dismissal of the suit has been dismissed.2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:A suit in O.S. No. 304/2005 was filed on 11.01.2005 by the respondents No. 1 to 5 herein on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore seeking a relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents or any one claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It was stated in the said suit that the cause of action for the suit arose on 08.01.2005 when the defendants and their agents attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property which is alleged to have been resisted by the plaintiffs therein. In the said suit the defendants after being...

S.R. Quadri S/O Late S.M. Quadri Vs. Madrasa B. Arabia Rep. by Its Sec ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Even though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent, it is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner is questioning the order passed by the Competent. Officer and as confirmed by the learned appellate Judge. The matter arises under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974.3. The petiton schedule premises belongs to respondent No. 1 which is a registered institution as Wakf which was notified in the Gazette on 01.04.1965. The case of the first respondent is that the petitioner is a lessee in respect of the room No. 9 on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- per month. Initially the lease was for a period of 11 months. But however, the petitioner continued to occupy the premises as a lessee and the first respondent has started accepting the rents. The first respondent would contend that the premises in question is a public premises and called upon the petitioner to vacate the premises by issuing a notice on 12.03....

Sri D.K. Appachchu S/O Late Sri D.K. Kalappa Vs. the Chief Officer, So ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent to construct RCC roof shop in the space measuring 15 ft X 15 ft in Sy. No. 194/13 near private bus stand in Somwarpet town as per the boundaries indicated in the prayer.2. Heard Sri L.S. Chikkanagoudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.C. Jagadish, learned Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent.3. The brief facts are that the petitioner claims to have sought for allotment of a shop premises measuring 15 ft X 15 ft in the year 1987-88 from the first respondent. In this regard the petitioner has also deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 22.12.1987. The petitioner refers to a resolution dated 6.5.1988 as at Annexure-B to contend that the panchayat had taken a decision to construct and allot a shop premises to the petitioner. Subsequently resolutions were also passed on 7.1.1988 and 29.2.1992. Th...

The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The Revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore which has been further confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No. 10(Bang)/2001, dated 21.02.2005 raising the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that a sum of Rs. 29,83,050/- derived by the assesses from the sale of 28,510 square feet of land received by the assessee for developing to 2 Acres 29 Guntas of agricultural land belonging to Sri Anjanappa into a residential layout should be treated as the capital asset of the assessee and indexation allowed by bringing the said income to tax under the head capital gains.(ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities having held that the assessee had acquired 28,510 square feet of land in the course of business were correct in holding that the sale proceeds derived from the sale of this property cannot be brought to...

Clifford Paul D'souza since dead by Lrs. (Mrs. Jacintha Swetha D'souza ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAravind Kumar, J.1. The respondents No. 2 to 4 before the Revision Court are questioning the order passed in RRP. No. 12/2008 dated 04.02.2010 by the I Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:An eviction petition in HRC. No. 12/2005 came to be filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein against Sri. K. Balakrishna i.e., fourth respondent herein and revision petitioners 1 to 3 under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. During the pendency of the said proceedings an application under Section 43 came to be filed by the first respondent Sri. K. Balakrishna contending that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The said application came to be resisted and on adjudication by order dated 29.06.2006 I.A. No. 1 filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same the first respondent therein i.e., fourth respondent herein filed a revision pet...

Virupaxappa, Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary, ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. High Court Government Advocate is directed to take notice to respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. D. Nagaraj is directed to take notice to respondent 3.2. On perusal of the records, especially Annexure-D dated 23.9.2009, we note that the so-called permission granted to the private party who is made as respondent 5 in this proceedings, is only a provisional consent. It is issued to the 5th respondent to proceed with the formalities, namely to obtain necessary clearance from other statutory departments. He is specifically directed not to proceed with trial or regular production. In other words before commencement of regular production or trial, they have to obtain a separate consent of the Board for operation.3. According to Mr. D. Nagaraj, learned Counsel appearing for 5th respondent, as per the guidelines of the High Court, issued in the case of Obayya Pujari v. Member Secretary : 1999 (3) KLJ 651 (DB) which were co...

Chandrashekar P.N. H/O Vijaya R. and P.D. Deepak S/O P.N. Chandrasheka ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 16.12.2004 passed in MVC No. 267/2001 on the file of the Principal I Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Mysore, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).2. The Tribunal by its judgement and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,91,336/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, as against the claim of the appellants for a sum of Rs. 49,05,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Smt. R. Vijaya in the road traffic accident. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The appellant No. 1 is the husband and appellant No. 2 is the minor child of the deceased. They have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 49,05,000/- on account of the death of late Smt....

Smt. Mallamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ290

ORDERHvluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. In these sets of petitions the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District at Annexure-G, dated 25-5-2009.2. Heard.3. According to the petitioners, during 1972 they were granted occupancy rights in respect of 12 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 77 of Chokkasandra Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore District and that behind the back of the petitioner's, the grant order made in their favour was cancelled after lapse of several years which is unjust.4. Learned Government Pleader has submitted that the land in question is a forest land and throughout, the forest authorities were claiming that it belongs to them, on the basis of which, the order came to be passed, which does not call for interference. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner has called for the report regarding the grant from the Tahsildar and before securing the records, the imp...

Smt. Mahadevamma W/O Late Mahadeva (Doreswamy and ors.) Vs. S.D. Devai ...

Court: Karnataka

Subhash B. Adi, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 53/1999 dated 23rd September 2002 on the tile of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Maddur, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 211/1978 on the file of Munsiff at Maddur as then existed dated 6.2.1995.2. Appellant is the wife and legal representative of deceased plaintiff and respondent in the appellate court. The suit is for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties.3. Case of the appellant is that, the deceased plaintiff and first defendant are in joint possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant No. 1 is his father, he is an illiterate, simple in nature, addicted to bad habits like drinking and gambling. Under the ill-will advice of some persons, without any knowledge and consent of the plaintiff sold the portion of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 under two separate registered sale deeds, with an intention to...