Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

Sri Manish Ajmera S/O Anantrai C AjmeerA. Vs. Sri Deepak Rajappa S/O L ...

Court: Karnataka

1. W.P.No.6509/2010 filed by respondent No.1 was disposed of on 14.09.2010. by granting liberty to respondent No. 1 to make a deposit of Rs. 60.00.000/-. within two weeks (from 14.09.2010). The remaining amount of Rs. 35.00.000/ was required to be deposited by respondent No.1, within a period of three months (from 14.09.2010).2. It is not a matter of dispute, that in compliance with the direction issued by this Court, respondent No.1 actually deposited the amount of Rs. 60.00.000/ , in consonance with, the directions issued on 14.09.2010. Out of the remaining amount of Rs. 35,00.000/- which was to be paid within a period of three months, he deposited a further amount of Rs. 25.00,000/-. On the last date i.e. when the period three months was to expire, respondent No. 1 approached this Court, requesting for further three weeks time, so as to enable him to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 10.00,000/-. A learned Single Judge of this Court, on 13.12.2010 granted the time sought by responde...

Mahadevu @ Mahendra S/O Late Puttaswamaiah, and ors. Vs. Smt Kamalamma ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No. 162/2000. aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2010 of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, rejecting LA. filed under Order 1 Ride 10(2) CPC and the order dated 10.01.2011 rejecting LA. under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, have presented this petition.2. In the suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties, instituted by the petitioners, LA. under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was filed by the 2"" petitioner to implead as defendants, 41 allottees of sites carved out of the suit lands, on the premise that they are necessary and propel- parties, claiming title throughthe 4th defendant/4th respondent - Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority. The 4th defendant / 4th respondent in turn claims to have been pat in possession of the said lands by the 3rd defendant, since deceased, under an agreement. That application was not opposed. The Court below, having noticed that Defendants 4 and 5 namely the Mysore Urban Development Authority and the Special...

Sri.Nagaraj. S/O. Govindaray Hittalmakki. Vs. the Stale of KarnatakA. ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In this petition, petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notification at Annexure A tinted 28.02.2009 issued by the 1st respondent and published in the Karnataka Gazette dt.28.02.2009 in part I.2. Petitioner is the holder of CL-9 license for the Excise Year 2008-2009 for running a Bar and Restaurant i.e., selling liquor (other than arrack) and also serving food. According to him, as per the earlier notification dated 29.06.2006, 20% profit margin was given to them, which has been reduced to 10% by applying the subsequent notification dated 28.02.2009 as per Annexure 'A' published in the official gazette, as a result of which, he suffered a loss for a period of four months. According to the petitioner, tie Government has suomoto issued the notification at Annexure "A' dated 28.02.2009 reducing the profit margin to 10% from 20% without consulting the distilleries, which is illegal.3. Heard.4. The learned Advocate General, on the instruction of t...

Smt Jagadabha W/O P. Ramaiah, and anr. Vs. Sri P. Ramaiah. S/O Pillapp ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In this ease the respondent filed an application in MC.No.504/2008 on the file of the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court. Bangalore, under Section 13(I)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') for the dissolution of his marriage with the first petitioner. In the said petition, the firs: petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month. In support of the applieation. the first petitioner has filed an affidavit contending that her husband is drawing monthly salary of Rs.29.103.63. She doe: not have any income of her own. Her daughter is also not employed. The said applieation was oppo vd by the respondent. The court below has allowed the application granting interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to 'he first petitioner from the date of the application. The claim of the first petitioner for grant of maintenance for her daughter (second petitioner) has been rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the ...

M.NarayanA. s/o T.Kannan, And Ors. Vs. the state of KarnatakA. by It's ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In Writ Petition No. 15834/2007 c/w Writ Petition Nos. 10264/2007, 10468/2007, 10172/2007, 9798/2007, 10086/2007, 9954/2007 and 10139/2007, petitioners are assailing the notifications issued a day prior to the commencement of the Excise year 2007-2008 in doubling the license fee to the holders of various kinds of liquor licenses. who are the distributors and retailers of Indian and foreign liquors.2. The main grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions is. in violation of the procedure provided under Section 71 of the Karnataka Excise Act and also Rule 8 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules of 1968, a draft notification was issued on 2^.05:2007 proposing to amend the rules for enhancement of license fee and, final notification was issued on 29.06.2007. According to them, its per the mandate under Section 71 of the Act, every rule has to be amended in accordance with law by laying the draft rules before both the houses of legislature and after fo...

Sri Siddappa, Son of Shivanna, and anr. Vs. Sri B.S.Sasavaraju, So Sid ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The impugned order is passed in M.A,5/10 confirming the order parsed on l.A.III which is in the nature of an interlocutor/ application seeking police help. Since the order passed by the trial court was on an interlocutory application and has not led to either deciding the issue finally on having the effect of disposal of the suit or proceeding, revision is not maintainable. 2. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek such remedy available in law....

B. She Kar Shetty Son of Eshwara Shetiy and ors. Vs. the State of Karn ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12221/2004. being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2009, passed by the learned Single -Judge confirming the order passed by the land Tribunal, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The appellant filed an application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Survey No.6- 17C measuring 1 acre of land situated at Badaga Mijar Village. Mangalore Taluk. The appellant has contended that he has been in possession and cultivating the land from the year 1968 and he is entitled for grant of occupancy rights. The land Tribunal by its order dated 20.10.1981 granted occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. Being aggrieved by the same, Smt.Sesi Shedhi the mother of respondents No,3(a) to 3(d) filed Writ Petition No. 21024/1982 challenging the same before this Court. 3. This Court by its order dated 31.3.1983 quashed the order dated 20.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal graining occupancy rights in favour of t...

The National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Administrative ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011ILR(Kar)5157

(This M.F.A is filed under Section 30(1) of W.C. Act against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2006 passed in WCA/FC/CR-38/2003 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mysore, awarding compensation of Rs.3,05,775/- with interest at 12% from 16.06.2003 till deposit and directing the appellant herein to deposit the same.) H.G. Ramesh, J., By consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, the appeal is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this judgment. This appeal by the National Insurance Company Limited is directed against the judgment dated 21.01.2006 passed by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mysore District, Mysore, in case No.WCA/FC/CR:38/2003. By the impugned judgment, the Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,05,775/- along with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 16.06.2003 for the death of one Somashekar in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.5.2003, while he was traveling as a c...

Sri Madan Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagaram District and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR757; 2011(4)KantLJ383

(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Order dated 20.10.10 in case No. Revision Petition 130/2007-08 passed by the R1 Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagaram District, Ramanagaram Vide Annex-K. The order dtd 18.09.2006 in Case No. RA(LKP)34/2006-07, passed by the R2 Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram Sub-Division, Ramanagaram Vide Annex-F and also that of the Order dtd 3.3.06 in case No. RRT(DIS)25/2005-0+6 passed by the R3 Thasildar, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanajapura Vide Annex-D to the W.P.) 1. A writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not one that confers High Court a special jurisdiction which it can exercise in any situation. It is in the nature of power of superintendence over the functioning of the courts and Tribunals in the State. 2. It is essentially meant to reign in the Judges and quasi judicial functionaries who function in courts and Tribunals within their jurisdiction and also to ensure ...

Sri Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka Rep by Principal Secretary, Bang ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR916; 2011(3)KantLJ363; 2011ILR(Kar)2454; 2011AIR(Kar)156

(Prayer: These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 19/4/2010 passed by the Learned R2 in case No. Revn. Petn.116/2007-08 produced at Anex-A and the order dated 31/5/2007 passed by the learned R3 in case No. RA(A) No.6/2006-07 produced at Annex –B and the mutation recorded by the R4 in M.R.No.46/1995-96 and M.R.No.121/2006-07 produced at Annex-N and etc.,.) 1. Writ jurisdiction is not one for working out as to who has purchased what extent of land in which survey number, what extent he is able to assert and enjoy claiming possession, what other extent is encroached on public land and all such matters can only be fit matters for examination in civil suits and not either by the revenue authorities who tinker with the entries in the revenue entries, even when there is no corresponding change of ownership rights and many a times contrary to such ownership rights also and find it a fertile area for indulging in c...