Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

Somashekara Rao, Hiriadka and Another Vs. the Canara Land Investment L ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Company Appeal filed praying to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 16-04-2004 passed by the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench Chennai, in CP No.26 of 2003 and grant such other and further reliefs as are just including the costs of this appeal.) 1. Company Appeal No.222/05 is preferred by the appellants challenging the order dated 16th April 2004, passed by the Company Law Board, under Section 397 and 398 read with Section 402 of the Companies Act, for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. The parties are referred to as they are referred to in the petition before the company Law Board. FACTURAL MATRIX 2. The Canara Land Investments Limited is a public limited company, for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’. It was established in the year 1932. Dr. T.M.A. Pai was one of the shareholders. His brother, Tonse Upendra Pai was appointed as Manager of the Company till 1941 and then he became the Managing D...

A. Ravikumar Alias Thangavel Vs. Kavitha Alias Bhuvaneshwari

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J: 1. The unsuccessful husband who has failed to get a decree of divorce has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the Judge. Family Court, Mysore, dated 12.8.2008 in M.C. No. 63/2005. 2. We have heard the Counsel for both the parties. 3. The facts of the case are as hereunder: The appellant filed a petition for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. According to the petition averments, the marriage was solemnised between the parties on 7.3.1999 at chennimalai, Tamilnadu. Thereafter, they resided together as husband and wife at Mysore for a short period. The appellant / husband is carrying on the business at Mysore. According to him, the respondent / wife has deserted without any cause and the respondent has treated the appellant / husband with cruelty as she has failed to provide love and affection and has failed to discharge her marital obligation. On these grounds, he filed the petition. The respondent...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. P. Nagappa Reddy a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR613(DB)

K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. The legality and correctness of the Judgment and award passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City dt.18.3.2003 in LAC 223/2003 is called in question by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and also by the beneficiary. 2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder: 1 acre 10 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.46 of Dodda Thogur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was notified for acquisition under the preliminary notification for acquisition under the preliminary notification dt. 4.2.1997 for construction of water tank by the BWSSB. An award was passed on 16.6.2000 and possession was taken on 25.8.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 5 Lakhs per acre. Being not satisfied with the same, on the request of the Landlord matter was referred to the Reference Court u/s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value. The parties let in their evidence. On behalf of the claimant, on...

B. Gurushanthaiah Hollalkere Taluk, Chitradurga Dist Vs. the State of ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India with a prayer to district and thereby set aside the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the 2nd Respondent in proceedings as per Annexure-A and also the order dated 8.2.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District in proceedings as per Annexure-B.) 1. Government lands are public properties in our country and therefore any one can go and occupy it and assert right over it, though the occupation is unauthorized, irregular, illegal and against law as pointed out by Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA. Nevertheless such illegal acts command a premium, as such persons are enabled by law in terms of the provisions of Section 94(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and it has become the practice of the day, for violators of law to grab any open vacant government land and to assert rights over it! 2. The practice of granting government lands particularly, non-alienated land, which was prevalent durin...

M. L. Shivakumar, Bangalore Vs. N. Annappa, Since Deceased by Lrs and ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This HRRP is filed under Section 46(1) of KR Act, against the order dated 17.07.2009 passed in HRC No. 177/2007 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, dismissing the application (IA 6) filed under Section 2(3)(g) of KR Act r/w. S. 151 of CPC.) 1. This matter is placed before this Division Bench by the special orders passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, at a request of the learned Single Judge, for a reference to resolve conflict in the views expressed in several judgments regarding the word ‘plinth area’ used in Section 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). 2. For the purposes of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the eviction petition - HRC No. 177/2007. 3. The subject matter of these proceedings is a shop premises bearing No. 24/24 situated at 17th cross, 20th main, M. C. Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore measuring 7 x 10 feet along with a por...

Mrs. Shantha Naik Vs. Smt. Rajeevi and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the PRL. Civil Judge and JMFC in Election Petition No.1/2010, Vide Annexure-A.) 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/10/2010 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mangalore, in Election Petition No.1/2010, which is produced at Annexure ‘A’ and he has also challenged the order dated 5/5/2010 passed by the Tahsildar - Respondent No.3, which is produced at Annexure ‘E’. 2. According to the petitioner, she is a member of the Bhovi community, a Scheduled Caste , by birth and was married to Sri Narayan Naik, a member of Scheduled Tribe on 7/3/1993 at Kateel as per the customary rights of the community; that she has been recognized as a member of her husband’s caste and accepted by the public as a member of the Naik Community. She filed her nomination as a candidate o...

NagarajA. S/O Yadakuntappa, Vs. the State of Karnataka by Rural Police ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent State in respect of the anticipatory bail petition filed.2. Petitioner's counsel submits that, though the case is registered u/s 286. 338. 304-A of IPC r/w sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances act, following the blasting of the rock on 10.10.10 at 8.30 p.m. on account of which one person died and some others were injured, yet the petitioner is not the owner of the quarry in question, but due to business rivalry the petitioner has been roped in the case.3. Submission of the learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent-State is that, the complaint allegations indicate that this petitioner permitted the blasting of the stone which led to death of one Thippeswamy and other persons being injured and the petitioner used to get the explosive substances from one Shankar.4. Having regard to the nature of allegations made and the contentions put forward, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted an...

M/S. H.H. Cement Products, Represented by Its Partner Sri. Mahammad Af ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR71(SN); 2011ILR(Kar)1010

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the clarification dtd.8.9.2006 issued by the R2 vide Annex-A and consequently declare the phrase `all kinds of bricks’ occurring in entry 2 of schedule III to the Act as exhaustive, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.) 1. The petitioners in these petitions have sought for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the clarification No.CLR CR.91/2006-2007 dated 8.9.2006 at Annexure `A’ issued by the 2nd respondent and to declare the phrase `all kinds of bricks’ occurring in Entry 2 of Schedule III to the Act as exhaustive, in so far as the petitioners are concerned and to quash the re-assessment orders at Annexures `C’ and `D’ for the assessment periods 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 respectively in W.P.No. 13172-73/2010 and Annexure G for the assessment period 2009-2010 in W.P.Nos.13376 and 13843-51/2010 issued by the 1st respondent and, to issue wr...

N. Nanjappa Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary an ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that land bearing sy.no. 155/2 measuring 4 acres 14 guntas situated at Kuduvathi village Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapur taluk belonging to the petitioner is deemed to have been converted for non-agricultural purposes by virtue of section 95(5) of the Karnataka land Revenue act and etc.,) 1. Misc W No 328 of 2011 for early hearing is allowed and the writ petition is taken up for hearing. 2. Writ jurisdiction is not meant for issue of declaration in favour of a private person even assuming reliance is placed on some statutory provisions such as sub-section 5 of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the Act]. 3. The present petition is by a person who, it appears had applied for conversion of his agricultural land for non-agricultural use to an extent of 4 acres 14 guntas in Sy No 155/2 of Kuduvathi village, Nandi hobli, Chikkaballapur taluk and district, in te...

Chinnamma and ors Vs H S Nataraj S/O SubhannA.

Court: Karnataka

1. Appeal is by the legal representatives of the 1st defendant before the trial court challenging the finding of the lower appellate court in respect of the suit property item Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.2. As per genealogy, Patel Veerappa is the propositus. During the year 1959. There was a division of the property among Patel Veerappa and his four children. Thereafter, it appears one of the sons of Patel Veerappa, filed OS 47/1979 seeking for division and for partition of the suit properties at items i to 3. The matter was contested. However in the meanwhile, it appears there is also a Will executed by Patel Veerappa in favour of the 5th defendant who is none other than the son of the 2nd defendant. The trial court, while decreeing the suit in part, in so far as the property covered under the Will at items 1 to 3 is concerned, held that the property in question - schedule property mentioned in the Will are not the joint family properties, however, accepting the signature on the Will b...