Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

Vijayalakshmi Vs. Nagaraju

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This W.P. is filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to set aside the order dt.25/10/2010, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Madhugiri, in O.S.No.83/06 on I.A. No.6 under order 13 Rule 4 r/w Sec.151 of CPC, vide Annex.A and Consequently allow the Application (IA-6) under order 13 Rule 4 of CPC, on its file on the facts and Circumstances of the Case and Direct the Court below to hear on Admissibility of Document and impound the same and etc.) 1. The rejection of plaintiff’s I.A.No.6 under Order 13 Rule 4 CPC to consider the admissibility of the document dated 9/7/2002 marked as Ex.D1 by order dt. 25/10/2010 in O.S.No.83/06 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, is called in question in this petition. 2. Petitioner instituted O.S.No.83/06 arraigning the respondent herein as the defendant to recover possession and for arrears of rent of Rs.45,000/- as also enquiry into mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of del...

M/S. Cave Caterers Private Limited Rep by Its Managing Director Sanjay ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR721; 2011(3)KantLJ21; 2011ILR(Kar)2017

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the defendant to execute a registered lease deed in favour of the plaintiff for the period from 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2009 in respect of the schedule property; and etc.) 1. The rejection of plaintiff’s IA-8 invoking Sections 32 and 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 for short ‘Act’, to impound Ex.D29 and direct defendants to pay duty and penalty thereon, by order dt.14.12.2010 in O.S.6616/2006 of the 5th City Civil Court, Bangalore, is called in question in this petition. 2. In the suit instituted by the petitioner for the reliefs of specific performance of an agreement dt.23.5.2002; to direct the defendants to execute an affidavit and registered lease deed of the suit schedule property for the period 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2009 and for permanent injunction in respect of the said property, the respondent-defendant, on notice, entered appearance, resisted the suit by ...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., by Its Regional Manager, Bangalore Vs. Gu ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This M.F.A. filed u/s 30(1) of W.C. Act against the judgment dated 18.12.2006 passed in KAM/KNP/CR-5/2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Kodagu Sub Division, Madikeri, awarding a compensation of Rs.58,738/- with interest at 12%P.A.) 1. These appeals have come up today for admission. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in all the five appeals being common, they are taken up together for final disposal in the presence of counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The brief facts in each of the case are as under: (a) M.F.A. No.5203/2007: The claimant an employee under 1st respondent in their Coffee estate met with an accident on 28.03.2003 at about 12.20 p.m. due to malfunctioning of pepper grading machine resulting in amputation of her right hand. Thereafter, she filed claim petition seeking compensation from her employer - first respondent and also the second respondent - insurance company by filing claim petition in C.R.No....

T. Mary Vs. Commissioner of Police Bangalore City and Others

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order of detention of her husband by name Tirumaran @ Raja, S/o Muniswamy, passed by the 1st Respondent vide order No.CRM (4) DTN/06/2010 dt. 2.5.2010 which has been approved by the 2 Respondent by his order dt. 12.5.2010 which are produced as Annexures-A and C respectively, as illegal and void abinitio. 3. The facts leading to this case are as hereinder: The petitioner is the wife of one Tirumaran @ Raja. Respondent - 1 by his order dt. 2.5.2010 invoking Section 8 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 passed an order to detain him. 4. The husband of the petitioner submitted a representation on 25.5.2010 to consider his case and to release him on the ground that he is innocent of the offence alleged against him. The order passed by the 1st Respondent has also been confi...

Ninganagouda Vs. Kalubai and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in: 2011ILR(Kar)760

Plaintiff is in appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.45/2009 by the III Additional District Judge, Dharwad dated 31/08/2010. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are as under: Appellant instituted a suit in O.S.No.150/2008 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Dharwad for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of suit property. It was contended, in the suit that plaintiff has become absolute owner in possession of suit property on the strength of an unregistered sale deed executed by the father of the defendant namely late Sri. Anantappa Mahadevappa Mulagund on 05.09.1971 and when the plaintiff sought for change of his name in the revenue records pursuant to earlier representation which had not been done by the Tahsildar inspite of representation given, Tahasildar gave the endorsem...

M/S. Vijaya Aharodyama, Rep by Its Managing Parter P.N. Rama Bhat Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR1470; 2011(3)KantLJ689; 2011ILR(Kar)1983

(Prayer: This Petition is filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution Of India, Praying to call for Records from the R2 which Ultimately Resulted in Passing the Impugned Notice DT. 11.1.2010 Vide Annx-A Issued by the R2 and etc.,) (Prayer: Mis. W. 11765 of 2010 is filed u/a 226 of Constitution of India r/w order 1 Rule 10[2] of CPC filed by the applicant to implead as Additional Respondent in the above Writ Petition.) 1. Persons having no right either in law or on facts and who make a habit of coming to this court on one pretext or the other invoking writ jurisdiction and if this court, more often than not, out of sheer sympathy and only to ensure that clear opportunity is given to any person if any adverse order is passed, if remands to original authority, it does not mean it creates any right in favour of any person who had approached this court invoking writ jurisdiction. 2. Writ jurisdiction is not one to confer rights on any person much less to grant lands or other proper...

Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Represented by Its Director V ...

Court: Karnataka

(This MFA is filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and award dated 21.4.2009 passed in LAC No.10/1991 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Puttur, D.K., partly allowing the reference petition for enhanced compensation.) B.S. Patil, J. ORDER ON REFERENCE All these appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the awards passed by the Reference Court, either on a reference made under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and Amendment) Act XVII of 1961, or under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. These appeals were posted before the learned Single Judge for orders on the objection raised by the office regarding the maintainability of the same before this Court. Objection regarding maintainability was raised by the Registry in the light of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 as amended by the Karnataka High Court and Certain Other L...

M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd., Rep by Its Head-legal and Regulatory S. Nagara ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Writ Petition Nos. 35223 - 234/2010 are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the tax levied by the third Respondent by virtue of residuary entry in terms of Section 4 (1) (B) of the KVAT Act, 2003, read with Entry 54, List-II of the Constitution as ultravires Entry 97, List-I read with Section 65 (109a) of the Finance Act, 1994 unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245, 246, 265, 366(12) and 366(29A) of the Constitution of India, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned and etc.) (Prayer: Writ Petition No.35950/2010 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the tax levied by the third Respondent by virtue of entry in terms of Section 5 of the KST Act, 1957 read with Entry 54, List-II of the Constitution as ultravires Entry 97, List-I read with Section 65(109a) of the Finance Act, 1994 unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14,19(1)(g), 245, 246, 265, 3...

The Commissioner of Central Excise. Vs. M/S Crompion Greaves Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal tiled by the assessee and granting him the relief in the matter of payment of Central Excise duty.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of Rural Automotive exchanges and parts thereof. They cleared 900 numbers of FRS '20 with all accessories to M/s. Midas Communication Technologies Private Limited. Chennai, a 100% EOU on payment of Central Excise Duty of Rs.5.96.304/- on 31.1.2004. The customer rejected the goods on account of certain defects. The goods were brought back to the factory of the assessee on 27.2.2004 and 12.3.2004.The assessee availed Convent credit of Rs. 5.96.304/- on 25.3.2004. After rectifying the defect in the goods, on the basis of a fresh purchase order, this lime cleared the goods free of duty under cover CT-3 certificates. The revenue issued a show cause notice dated 10.8.2005 to the assessee for clearing the goods without ...

Chodumada B.Harish. S/O Biddappa, and Kunhamme @ K.K.Mohidcen, S/O Mam ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Anticipatory bail is sought by the petitioners following a case having been registered against them in F.O.C.No. 2/2010-11 for the offences punishable under Sections 24(d & e). 62(1) and 104(a) of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules 127(A). 144 r/w 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules.2. The submission of the petitioners' counsel is that, only on the telephonic information, the petitioners came to be involved in the ease and through there was no materia) to show the role of the petitioners so far as the removal of the rose wood logs, which were found by the &.F.O. on 2.9.2010. Therefore, the petitioners be released on bail.3. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that, at the spot, only the rose wood logs were found lying and the petitioners were not arrested at the spot, but, only on telephone message, the possibility of the petitioners' involvement has been interred by the police.4. Having thus heard both sides. I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory...