Karnataka Court December 2011 Judgments

Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Superintendent Eng ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records in URA No.26/05 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai; quash the order dated 17.4.2007, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (Ann-A) and consequently allow the said appeal filed by the petitioner.) Vikramajit Sen, AG.C.J. 1. This writ petition assails the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, passed on 17.04.2007 directing the petitioner, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board to pay a sum of `49.59 lakhs to the respondent bank viz., Vijaya Bank. Out of this sum of `48.45 lakhs had already been deposited with Vijaya Bank which it was permitted to appropriate. Accordingly the petitioner is required to pay the shortfall of `1.14 lakh to Vijaya Bank. 2. At the outset we must record our dissatisfaction with the documents placed on record by the petitioner. In particular, Annexure-B purports to be a true copy of the o...

M/S Classic Developers, Bangalore, Rep. by Its Managing Partner Sushil ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the demand on and the claim from the petitioners by the R3 to pay the arrears of Nandi Re-Rolling Mills Private Limited vide Anx-F is illegal and void abinitio; and to supply electricity to the apartment complex on property bearing No.45/1B and 46/2 of Geddalahalli village K.R. Puram, Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.) 1. The first petitioner is said to be a registered partnership firm of which the 2nd petitioner is one of the partners. Four partners of the 1st petitioner jointly made an offer of Rs.2,02,00,000/- Rupees Two Crores and Two Lakhs only) in response to a public notice of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, for short ‘DRT’, published in the Deccan Herald newspaper dt. 22/2/2004, Annex.A, inviting bids for sale by public auction of the following vacant lands: (1) 1 acre 32 guntas forming part of Sy.No.45/1A and 45/1B, re-numbered as 45/1B; (2) 1 acre 35 gunt...

High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, Represented by Its Registrar Gener ...

Court: Karnataka

(This suo-motu Criminal Contempt Petition is filed under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying to initiate criminal contempt action against the accused herein and punish him in accordance with law.) ShylendraKumar, J. This criminal contempt petition is registered suo-motu by the registry of this Court on receiving a communication dated 17.2.2011 originating from the office of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chickballapur and through proper channel addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court and the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Chickballapur having made a request for initiating contempt proceedings against the accused-an advocate practicing before that Court, for the reason that certain uttering by the advocate in the open court hall on the 10th of February 2011, are according to the learned Judge who has passed the orders in RA No.31/2011 pending before that court and which uttering was out of passion whic...

M/S. Metal Impacts Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Representative Senior ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This plaint filed under order VII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC r/w Section 22 of Designs Act 2000 before the Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.15349 of 2006 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka.) 1. These two suits are filed by the common plaintiff against the common defendant for an injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the registered designs of the plaintiff. Except two different designs which are the subject matter of the suit in all other respects the facts of the case are identical. Therefore, by consent of parties common trial is conducted and these two suits are disposed of by this common judgment 2. The plaintiff file O.S.No.15349/2006 against the defendant on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, from infringing the registered design of the plaintiff bearing design No.187526 dated 10.12.2001 and for other consequent...

Smt. Nagarathnamma and Others Vs. B. Rudriah and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This RFA filed under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 27-2-1998 in OS.No.10311 of 1983 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No.17), dismissing the suit for partition etc.,) 1. These two appeals arise out of judgment and decree dated 17.02.1998 passed in O.S.No.10311/1983 by the II Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit as not maintainable and also on the ground that it is barred by Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. Before setting out the case of each party, it is necessary to set out the events which transpired from the date of institution of the suit till the date of commencement of trial, in order to properly appreciate the controversy between the parties. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. The plaintiffs initially filed a suit in O.S.No.10311/83 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-1 to 11 or anyb...

AlamelammA. Vs. H.M. Aananda Reddy and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2012KAR2151

(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/s. 173[1] of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated:08/12/2006 passed in MVC No.1856/2005 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-10), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation and further praying to fix the liability on both the respondents herein.)N.K. PATIL J.1. This appeal by the appellant claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 08/12/2006 passed in MVC No.1856/2005 by the 14th Additional Judge, court of small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-10), (Hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short].2. The Tribunal by its Judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit fastening the liability on the first respondent, a...

Umadevi and ors. Vs. Chandrashekharaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KCCR138

S.N. SATHYANARAYANA, J:1. Claimants in MVC No.459/2001 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein. The fact that claimant Nos. 1 to 4 are respectively widow and children of deceased Ramaiah is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute deceased Ramaiah died in a motor accident, which took place while he was travelling in Maxi cab bearing registration No. KA-13/3101 which met with an accident due to collision with another lorry bearing No. AP-13/T-6937. In the said accident, alongwith deceased Ramaiah other inmates of Maxi cab also died.2. After the death of Ramaiah, his widow and children filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation for his death in said accident and the claim petition was filed against the owner and insurer of Maxi cab in which deceased Ramaiah was travelling and also against the owner and driver of lorry which was involved in the said accident. The Tribunal c...

Alamelamma Vs. H.M. Aananda Reddy and Another

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/s. 173[1] of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated:08/12/2006 passed in MVC No.1856/2005 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-10), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation and further praying to fix the liability on both the respondents herein.) N.K. PATIL J. 1. This appeal by the appellant claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 08/12/2006 passed in MVC No.1856/2005 by the 14th Additional Judge, court of small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-10), (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short]. 2. The Tribunal by its Judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit fastening the liability on the fi...

Umadevi and Others Vs. Chandrashekharaiah and Others

Court: Karnataka

S.N. SATHYANARAYANA, J: 1. Claimants in MVC No.459/2001 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein. The fact that claimant Nos. 1 to 4 are respectively widow and children of deceased Ramaiah is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute deceased Ramaiah died in a motor accident, which took place while he was travelling in Maxi cab bearing registration No. KA-13/3101 which met with an accident due to collision with another lorry bearing No. AP-13/T-6937. In the said accident, alongwith deceased Ramaiah other inmates of Maxi cab also died. 2. After the death of Ramaiah, his widow and children filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation for his death in said accident and the claim petition was filed against the owner and insurer of Maxi cab in which deceased Ramaiah was travelling and also against the owner and driver of lorry which was involved in the said accident. The Tribunal...

Saheb Reddy Vs. Sharanappa and Others

Court: Karnataka Gulbarga

Ananda, J 1. This regular second appeal by first defendant was admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law:- “Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in increasing the share of the plaintiff in addition to his legitimate share of 1/16?” 2. I have heard Sri S.S. Kumman, Learned Counsel for appellant/first defendant and Sri Deepak V. Barad, Learned Counsel for first respondent/plaintiff. 3. The admitted facts and findings recorded by the Courts below which are necessary to answer substantial question of law as aforestated are as follows:- The proposition of family was one Sharanappa Gaded, S/o Bheemanna Gaded. The suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of Sharanappa Gaded who died in the year 1957 leaving behind his wife Sharanamma and three daughters namely Kyadigamma Nagamma and Sarojamma. After the death of her husband, Sharanamma adopted the first dependant under registered Adoption deed dated 9.2.1971. The daughters of Shara...