Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

K. J. Manjunath Son of Late, K. R. Jambukeshwar,. Vs. Anitha Ramesh at ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioners have challenged the order at Annexure-E on LA.No.5 rejecting their application to examine the attesting witnesses of the Will said to have been executed by the lather of petitioners. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under: 3. 1 will refer to the parties as per their rank before the Court below for the purpose of convenience. The petitioners herein are the defendants whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs. They instituted a suit bearing O.S.No,2902/2007 seeking partition and separate possession of their lA share in the suit schedule properties. The petitioners filed the written statement and for the grounds stated therein sought for dismissal of the suit. It is their specific contention that, their father executed a Will dated 31.8.2006 and that Sri.K.S.Shiva Prakash and Sri.M.C.Thippestvamy aged 68 and 48 years respectively are the attesting witnesses to the said Will and they have sought the permission of the Court to examine the sai...

Smt. Gangahanumakka Vs. Siddaiah and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR658(DB)

N. Kumar, J: 1. This complaint is filed complaining that there is a disobedience of the order dated 03.12.2009 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 34778/2009. This Court by the said order directed the authorities to consider the representation filed by the petitioner for grant of alternative site vide Annexure-C and F dated 30.10.2008 and 02.09.2009 respectively in accordance with law and on merits at an early date. In pursuance of the said order, the authorities have issued Annexure-R1 rejecting the requests of the petitioner for grant of alternative site for the reasons set out in the said endorsement. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant is before this Court. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant’s Counsel submits that the authorities have not complaint with the order passed by this Court inasmuch as they have not considered the representation filed by the petitioner for grant of 60% in lieu of the land which was acquired and also not granted an al...

Devaraju Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR646

V. Jagannathan, J: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and the petition is disposed of finally in view of the short point involved for consideration. 2. The petitioner’s grievance is that, he and 14 other accused persons were the accused in Cr.No. 224/1999 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and the case against the accused persons other than the present petitioner was taken up for trial in S.C. No. 44/03 and the accused persons in the said case were all acquitted on the ground that the material witnesses for the prosecution had turned hostile and the judgment of acquittal therefore was the result. 3. Referring to the aforesaid judgment in the Sessions Case No. 44/03, submission now made is that, no purpose would be served in putting the present petitioner also on trial as the evidence is the same that led to the acquittal of all the other accused persons, Merel...

Union of India and Another Vs. Gurular Singh Sandhu

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR594(DB)

Ajith J. Gunjal, J: 1. Even though the petitions are listed today for orders, with consent, petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The respondent herein has filed an application before the Central Administration Tribunal questioning the non granting of promotion to the Grade of Commissioner and also for seeking consequential direction to convene a review DPC to consider his claim to the said post in the Pay Band-IV [37,400 - 67,000]. 3. Suffice it to say that the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the claim of the petitioner for the promotion. 4. Mr. N.R. Bhaskar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for Indirect Taxes files a memo indicating that the respondent has been promoted to the rank of a Commissioner in terms of Office Order No. 32012/19/2009-AD-II on 9.12.2010. 5. The said submission and the memo are placed on record. To our mind the petitions have become infructuous. Accordingly, petitions stand dismissed as havin...

Sri Shyam Bihari Rungta and Another Vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(1)KCCR616(DB)

H.G. Ramesh, J: 1. This appeal under Section 75(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (the ‘Act’) is directed against the order dated 2.12.2003 passed by the Trial Court namely the Court of the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in the insolvency petition in I.C. No. 12/2001 filed by the appellants. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has dismissed the insolvency petition as against respondents 1,3 and 5 in view of Section 8 of the Act. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. The sole contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that Section 8 of the Act not come into play on the facts of the case and therefore, the Trial Court had erred in dismissing the insolvency petition against the respondents referred to above by relying on Section 8 of the Act. 3. To examine the contention urged, it is relevant to refer to Section 8 of the Act which reads as follows: “8. Exemption of Corporation, e...

Smt. Venkatanarasamma Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(3)KantLJ377

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25/09/2009 one passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District in Rev. Ptn. No.112/2007-08 found at Annexure-E. Misc. W.11903/2010 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 151 of CPC praying to produce additional documents. Misc. W. 9461/2010 is filed under Section 151 of CPC for vacating interim order.) 1. Writ proceedings have been used by unscrupulous tricksters, dodgers and persons who putforth claims to government lands to further their interest and also seek the aid of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to achieve such designs than to ventilate any of their legitimate grievance or legal rights. 2. The present writ petition is one such with the petitioner approaching this court in the context of changing of entries (Pahani) in the revenue records by the officials in the revenue departmen...