Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments
Sri Guru Shankarananda Rice Industries Kallahalli, and anr. Vs. Union ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4,2. In these writ petitions, petitioners who are the rice millers and also traders in foodgrains carrying on the business in rice and paddy are seeking a declaration that there can be no restriction on the transportation of rice and paddy from one place to another within the State and also outside.3. The case of the petitioners is that in view of the order passed by the Is' respondent - Union of India lilting the restrictions on the movement of rice and paddy with, effect from 10.04.2002. the 2nd respondent - Slate Government and its authorities cannot impose any restriction on the free movement of rice and paddy from one place to another throughout India. It is the further grievance of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent and their Enforcement Officers, on the basis of the Notifications dated 30.10.2010 pertaining to Procurement Policy for the year 2010-11 and also on the basis of t...
Tag this Judgment!Thirtharama and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutions of India Praying to Quash the Order dated 13.5.2002 by R2 Arising out of the Order dated 4.12.2000 by R3 vide Ann-A and B Respectively.) 1. On a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court, this writ petition is placed before us. In substance, the question referred is as to whether the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is inapplicable to a ‘granted land’ i.e., a land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes but in respect of which occupancy rights were subsequently granted to a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961? In the context, it is relevant to refer to the definition of ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(1) (b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Naika and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Represented by Its Secr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a Prayer to quash and set aside the Order Passed by the R2 Dt.23.11.10 is Herewith Produced and Marked as Ann-E and Call for records.) 1. Writ petitions by persons, who claim interest in agricultural land to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.66/2 of G. Shankaranahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, as past and present owners, as the 1st petitioner who had claimed interest in the land initially by way of purchasing an extent of 4 acres in the said survey number under a sale deed dated 28.6.1970 having not enforced his right under the sale deed, but later claiming interest a tenant under the 5th respondent Sri Hunya Naika S/o. Ganga Naik had obtained occupancy rights in the land to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas of land under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KLR Act’) by making an appli...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.ibrahim S/O Mohammed. Vs. P.M.ibrahim S/O Mohammed.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation and also for fastening liability on the Insurance Company.2. I have heard Smi.K.S.Ashika, learned counsel for claimant and Sri L.Sreekanta Rao. learned counsel for Insurance Company.3. The claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle involved in the accident. The Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company of its liability on the ground that no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of pillion rider.4. As could be seen from the policy marked as Ex.R. 1, the vehicle involved in the accident was covered under package policy and certainly covers risk of pillion rider. Therefore, I hold both insured and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Regarding quantum of compensation:-5. As per medical records, claimant had suffered fracture of right tibial condyle and associated abrasions. The claimant was treated in Athena Hospital at Mangalore. The claimant was operated for reduction of fractu...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarojamma W/O Late Venkatadri. Vs. Smt. Padma Seshadri W/O Sri Se ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 10.10.2010 passed by the Court of the XII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-27) in O.S.No.7361/2009.2. The parties have amicably settled the matter. They have filed a joint memo duly signed by the parties and their respective learned advocates. Their signatures are identified by their respective learned advocates.3. Sri V.Raghavendra, the son and power of attorney holder of the appellant, Smt Sarojamma and Sri Sandeep B.S, the son of the respondent Smt Padma Seshadri are present before the Court. They are identified by their learned advocates. They sate that they have entered into this settlement of their own volition and without any duress from anybody. The memo is token on record. It reads as follows:"2. The parties to this Appeal wish to amicably settle the dispute between them on the following terms: a. The Respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 3, 00, 000/- (Three Lakhs only) to the Appellant vide Cheque bearing No.5...
Tag this Judgment!C. Muddaiah. S/O. Hanumanthaiah. Vs. the Commissioner of Housing, Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. The appellant, while he was working as First. Division Assistant in the office of the Karnataka Housing Board, availed of a "housing loan" in die year 1995. While availing the aforesaid loan, the appellant pledged his LIC Policy bearing No.73918830 (in the sum of Rs. 15.000-00) as additional security with the Karnataka Housing Board.2. It is the case of the appellant, which is not disputed at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondent, that the 'housing loan" taken by the appellant was cleared in the year 1997. Thereafter, the appellant retired from service on 28.02.1998. The grievance of the appellant has been, that having cleared the "housing loan", it was imperative for the Karnataka Housing Board to return to the appellant his LIC Policy bearing No.73918830 (in the sum of Rs. 15,000-00). which the appellant had pledged as additional security at the lime of availing of the aforesaid loan. It was asserted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that various representati...
Tag this Judgment!Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. The common petitioner in all these writ petitions has challenged the show cause notices issued by office of the Assistant Commissioner. Doddaballapur Sub-Division. Bangalore dated 27.12.2010 to the vendors of the petitioner to show cause as to why the land in question shall not be forfeited since the sale transaction in favour of the vendors of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 79-A and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act for short.2. The learned Senior Counsel Sri V H Ron. appearing for M/s.Lexplexus. learned counsels for petitioner contended that the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue such a show cause notice since the lands have lost the character of agriculture on account of conversion of the land for non agriculture purpose before the sale its favour of the petitioner u/s 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and therefore it is no mere a land in view of the definition of Section 2(18) o...
Tag this Judgment!Sri B P Balakrishna S/O Late Biliyara Poovaiah, and ors. Vs. Sri B R B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Since the controversy brought before court is restricted to the imposition of costs on allowing the applications, I think it appropriate to dispense with the notice to respondents.2. Petitioner's I.A.Nos. 4 to 9, to condone the delay. set aside the abatement and to bring on record the LRs of deceased plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 7. respectively, in O.S.No. 165/05 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Madikeri, when allowed by common order dt. 18/12/2010, is called in question in these petitions, in so far as it relates to the levying costs.3. The 1st petitioner is the 1st plaintiff, while petitioners 2 to 4 are LRs. of deceased 2nd plaintiff in O.S.I65/05 for partition and separate possession of joint family properties. The 2nd plaintiff and 7th defendant, having died during the pendency of the suit, their LRs. were not brought on record within the time Stipulated under Order 22 CPC and therefore LAs. 4 to 9 were filed to condone the delay of 770 days and 595 days respective...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavamurthy. S/O Late Chinnaiah. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Peenya P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Heard petitioner's counsel and the learned Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondent-State.2. In view of the submission made that this matter is covered by the order passed by this court earlier, this petition is disposed of finally.3. The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that the proceedings have been initiated under Section 447 of the I.P.C. and under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964. With out prior notice to the petitioner and. therefore, in view of the law laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastry v. State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary. Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation, reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka 4520. and the subsequent order passed in similar Criminal Petition No. 2812/2009, disposed of on 2.7.2009. the present proceedings also require to be quashed.4. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the position in law as has been laid down in the aforementioned cases by this court....
Tag this Judgment!K.Sheshappa Gowda S/O Late K.T.Aithappa GowdA. Vs. Lathish S/O Thimnap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. The claimant has filed this appeal against the judgment of dismissal of claim petition.2. I have heard Sri M.Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for claimant and Sri O. Mahesh. learned counsel far Insurance Company. I have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment.3. At the time of accident, claimant-K.Sheshappa Gowda was working as a Head Constable in Mangalore East Police; Station at Kadri, Mangalore City. As per the averments of claim petition, en 26.02.2003 at 0.30 p.m.. claimant was waiting near Nanthoor Bus; Stop to go to Shakthinagar, Mangalore. It is the case of claimant, at that time a motor cycle bearing No. KA 19-V-7377 ridden by one Surendra came at a high speed and dashed against claimant, as a result he suflered comminuted intraarticular fracture of right distal radius and multiple abrasions all over his body immediately, the claimant was admitted in City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre, Kadri, Mangalore and he was an inpatient for a period of 9 da...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »