Karnataka Court June 2010 Judgments

Alamengada Muddappa and ors. Vs. Alamengada Kuttappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDER(a) Appeal is devoid of merit and hence, stands dismissed, subject to the observations made supra.(b) Case of both parties is kept open for consideration by the Trial Court, on all the issues, except issue No. 7.(c) The Trial Court is directed to take the suit on its board on 21.6.2010 and proceed further in the matter. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties have undertaken to keep their clients present before the Trial Court on 21.6.2010 to receive the orders.(d) Trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and at rate within one year period from the date of first appearance of the parties.In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs....

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs. M. Bantaiah and Others.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR4030

ORDER1. Plaintiffs writ petition questioning the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by 3"i Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) in O.S.No.886/2005.2. Suit is one for recovery of Rs.90.200/- with 18% interest p.a from the date of suit till realization. Plaintiff alleges that, defendants 1 and 2 are the husband and wife and defenoants 3 to 5 are the children. On 3.3.2004 defendants had boirowed a sum of Rs.70.000/- by entering into the mortgage agreement by agreeing to mortgage (plaint produced along with Writ Petition shows only by mortgage). Defendants on the date of said transactions have handed over important document in favour of the plaintiff.3. In the evidence, plaintiff sought to produce document styled as mortgage agreement dated 3.3.2004. Trial Court found that, the document though styled as mortgage agreement, in reality it is a mortgage and it requires to be duly stamped and register arid accordingly it ordered for impounding of the document on determination of the value of the stamp du...

Ammayyamma W/O. S. Venkatappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Co ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner was working as Poura Karmike under Town Municipality Council, Hosakote. She retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation or 31.3.2008. After the retirement, while settling the pensionary benefits, the second respondent addressed a letter to the Chief Office, Town Municipal Council, Hosakote, stating that the pay of the petitioner has been wrongly fixed w.e.f. 1.7.1986 and therefore he directed him to get the re-fixation done by the competent authority and to recover the excess salary paid to hr w.e.f. 1.7.1986. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent issued the Official Memorandum refixing the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1982 and ordered for recovering the alleged excess amount from DCRG and the other pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent has withheld Rs. 80,000/- which is due to the petitioner from DCRG payable to the petitioner. Action of the respondents is called in...

Rehamathulla Khan S/O M. Abdulla Khan Vs. Smt. Hajira Banu W/O Late Ra ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The petitioner's grievance is over the Trial Court's order refusing to issue prohibitory orders to the Special Land Acquisition Officer from paying the amount awarded on the compulsory acquisition of the lands and further over the Appellate Court's order confirming the Trial Court's order.2. The subsequent event has taken place rendering this petition infructuous, as the Land Acquisition Officer is said to have deposited the award amount with the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.3. This petition is therefore dismissed as having become infructuous by reserving the liberty to the petitioner to put forth his contentions before the Reference Court where the matter is now pending....

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Ranganatha Enterprises

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. The instant appeal is by the revenue questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the income Tax appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 109/Bang/2002 and raising following substantial questions of law:1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no penalty would ba laviad in the casa of the assassaa daspita the assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealing particulars of income in the return of incoros filed on 30.7.1993 which was delected during coursa of assessment proceedings and an addition of Rs. 4,82,097/- having been added and the same being accepted by the assessee?2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in proceeding to hold that there was a bona fide mistake in the computer and all the details had been furnished by the assassae before the Assessing Officer which was wholly an incorrect statement since the same vas detected by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the ...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Rep. by Divisional Manager Vs. Sri. G Nag ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3975

1. This appeal by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.. is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore City, in M.V.C.No.8234/2008. The appellant is the Insurer of the TVS motorcycle bearing registration NO.KA-04-EN-7380.2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,06,500/- along with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. for the death of one Shobha in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.08.2008 while she was travelling as a pillion rider along with her husband as rider of the aforesaid TVS motorcycle. The husband, who is respondent No.1 herein, is the owner/insured of the motorcycle. The claimants are the children of the deceased & the insured, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein. The claim petition was filed under Section 123-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 {'the Act' for short). The Tribunal, having found that the accident arose out of the use of the motorcycle, has awarded...

H.M. Shankaramurthy Vs. National Highways Authority of India and Other ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3711

1. This is an appeal under section 37[l](b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the land owner whose lands had come to be acquired for the purpose of road widening under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 [for short 'the Act']. It appears the land acquisition officer had determined the compensation payable to the owner at Rs.45/- per square foot and the owner being aggrieved or not satisfied with this meager compensation, had sought for reference to the Arbitrator in terms of sub-section[5| of section 3G of the Act. Section 3G of the Act reads as under:3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation -(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on. any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land, has ...

M N Kaveramma and ors Vs, the State of Karnataka and ors

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3411

This RFA filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.20/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Madikeri, dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and etc.,This RFA coming on for orders on examination of continuation or otherwise of the interim order granted on 5-4-2007 and the memo for retirement filed by the counsel for the appellant, this day SHYLENDRA KUMAR delivered the following: -1.This appeal is by the plaintiffs in the suit, who had sought for the following prayer in the suit before the learned Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn), Madikeri.A declaration to declare thai the schedule properties are the prb/ate properties of the plaintiffs and not public properties; declare that any marking made in the Map or Plan maintained by the Defendant No.l over the schedule properties purporting to be paths or ways were not duly entered therein; declare that the order dated 18.01.1994 passed by the Defendant No.3 in M.A.G. No.2...

M.T.Siddashetty. S/O Madashetiy and K.S.Basavaraju. S/O Madashetiy Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3480

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.556/20C5 dated 19.11.2009 on the file of the XII Add!. City Civii Judge at Bangalore. The appellants were the defendants No.) and 2 in the suit and the Is" respondent was the plaintiff. The 2nd respondent, was the 3rd defendant. For the sake of convenience the parties are rclerred to their respective ranking before the trial court.2. In the suit, the plaintiff contended that defendant No. 1 was the owner of the eastern portion of the property bearing site No.36. formed in Sy.No. 152/2 & 153/2 situated at Kethamaranahalli village, Manjunath Nagar. West of Chord Road, Bangalore, which is morefully described in the schedule to the plaint and hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property'. The new number assigned to the suit schedule property was No.300 in the records of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The defendants No. 1 and 2 were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff purcha...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Karnataka State Warehousing Cor ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the common order dated 5.7.2004 passed in ITA Nos. 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 & 244/Bang/2003 on the file of the Income lax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (A), for the assessment years from 1992-1993 to 1997-1998 in so far as it relates to fumigation, disinfestation charges and supervisory charges.2. Since all those appeals arise out of a common order, they are disposed of by this common judgment.3. In these appeals, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the entire income derived from fumigation, disinfestation and supervisory charges without recording a categorical finding as to whether the same had been incurred in the internal storage process or the external storage process as held by this Hon'ble Court in 185 In this regard 25?ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the entire income derived from fumigation, disinfestation and supervisory charg...