Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments

Allam Karibasappa, Bellary and ors. Vs. Singamasetty Venkataramaiah an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(3)KCCR2247(DB); 2011(6)KantLJ391(DB); 2011(6)KarLJ391(DB)

(Prayer: MFA No.2873/2004 is filed U/S 75(2) of Provincial Insolveny Act, R/W SEC. 104 of CPC against the Order DT. 16.2.04 Passed on I.A. NO.XV IN I.C. NO.2/75 on the file of the AddL. dist, Judge, Bellary, dismissing I.A.NO.XV FILED U/S. 4 and 5 of the Act, Seeking relief of issuance of suitable directions to the official receiver, Bellary.MFA No. 2706/2004 is filed U/S. 75 of Provincial Insolvency Act, against the Order DT. 16.2.04 Passed on I.A.NO.XV IN I.C .NO.2/75 on the file of the Addl. Dist. Judge, Bellary, dismissing I.A.NO.XV FILE DU/S s.4 and 5 of the ac tin IC. Seeking relief of issuance of suitable directions to the official receiver, Bellary.)These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bellary, dated 16.02.2004 passed on I.A. XV in I.C. No.2/75 and Ms. C. No.5/2000, wherein the learned District Judge has allowed the application filed under Sections 144 and 94 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Ms. C. No.5/2000 wi...

T. Nagaraj and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated 07/10/2008 and 29/08/09 marked under Annexures-A and C issued by the R1 by issue of a writ of Certiorari.) (Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification of the R1 dated 25.3.2008 in so far as it relates to conditions numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, vide Annexure-C and to quash the resolution of the R2 dated 7.6.2008 in subject No.06/2008-09 laying down the draft guidelines vide Annexure-D.) 1. Petitioners in these petitions have sought for to quash the notifications dated 07.10.2008 and 29.8.2009 at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘C’ issued by the 1st respondent and for such other relief. 2. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent has prohibited the registration of autorickshaws other than four stroke engine vehicles, in the specified areas in the State of Karnatak...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Vs. Mahadevappa

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: The MFA is filed under Section 54(1) of Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and award sated 18.3.2006 passed in LAC No. 63/2002 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Mysore, partly allowing the reference petition for compensation. The MFA Cross Objections is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, against the judgment and award dated 18.3.2008 passed in LAC No.63/2002 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore, partly allowing the reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation.) 1. M.F.A. No.7564/08 is filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, MUDA, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore, dated 18.3.2008 in LAC No.63/02 and Cross Objection No.258/08 is filed by the respondent who lost the land on account of the acquisition by the appellant. In the circumstances appeal and cross objections re heard together. 2. We have heard Sri P...

Mohankumar, Bangalore Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore D ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the R1, dt.26.12.08, passed in No.SC.ST(a)10/05-06 and No.SC.ST(A)12/05-06 as per Ann-C and further be pleased to confirm the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner dt.4.1.2005 in No.K.SC.ST (S) 77 and 78/1980-81 and etc. Misc.W.12609/2009 filed under Section 151 of OPC praying to vacate the order of stay dated 24.2.2009.) 1. These writ petitions are a typical illustration as to how the purpose or intent of social welfare legislation can be effectually thwarted by obstructing property owners who have acquired interest in the meanwhile, for sustaining their possession and ownership of lands-in spite of social welfare legislation enacted by the legislature and if not totally avoided, ultimately inevitable at least to prolong and postpone the inevitable event for as long a period as is possible, so that their continued possession and enjoyment of subject land is...

Mohankumar. Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner, and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. Proceedings in the high court in exercise of judicial review of administrative action under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are not proceedings in the nature of an adversary litigation nor one to determine rights and entitlements of parties to petition, but only for review of action taken by the administrative/statutory authorities.2. All and sundry, any and even,' person who thinks he/she also has some interest in the proceedings cannot jump into high court seeking for impleadment as either co-petitioner or as a respondent on one pretext or other and such is the nature of the present application filed by as many as 14 persons and represented by their general power of attorney holder one Krishnappa s/o late Muniyappa, aged about 39 years. r/at Nagadevanahaili village, Kengeri hobli. Gnanabharathi post, Bangalore south taluk. Bangalore - 560 056 seeking for impleadment in the present, writ, petitions figuring as the \5IU applicant as respondents, supported by an affidav...

Raja Chakraborty. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 18.02.2011 passed in C.C.No.37095/2008 by the XTV ACMM. Mavohali. Bangalore challenging the dismissal of application U/s.340 r/w. Sec. 195 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner. Section 195(4) states that an appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the orders of the court before which the application U/s.340 has been filed. The offence in respect of which proceedings were pending is one U/s. 138 of N.I. Act. An appeal from the orders of the said court lies to the Sessions Court. Therefore, this appeal before this court is not maintainable and therefore, the appeal is....

Srinivasa S/O.Late.BoregowdA. Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its S ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24/12/2010. which is produced at Annexure "M" and the order dated 24/1/2011, which is produced at. Annexure "R".2. It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Sy.No. 152 of Hebbal village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, was standing in the name of one Siddegowda and others, who were the owners in possession and enjoyment of the said land totally measuring 1 Acre 25 Guntas; that in the year 1984, Siddegowda had formed revenue sites and disposed them of to various persons; that one such site bearing No.6, measuring 25' x 68' was sold in favour of one Smt Gowramma, through an unregistered sale deed dated 25/8/1984 and she was in possession of the same. Thereafter, a road was formed in a portion of the said site. After the formation of the road, Gowramma had retained an area of 30' x 40'. She sold the said property in favour of the petitioner through an unregistered sale deed dated 10/1/1995 and put the petitioner...

M/S. Amberkar VirupannA. Vs. Indian Bank.

Court: Karnataka

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.08.2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Bangalore, in S.A.No.212/2010 vide Annexure-J. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner seeking to sc' aside the possession notice dated 23.10.2009 and the notice of intended sale dated 23.1 1.2009 issued by the respondent-bank as per the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act. 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act')2. When the said appeal was posted for hearing, counsel for the petitioner herein had filed a memo seeking four months' time for regularisation of the loan account. This was objected to by the counsel for the bank. After verification of the pleadings and the material on record, the Tribunal found that there was no valid and bonafide ground made out for granting time to settle the loan account. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner had availed suff...

M/S. Canara Tile Works and Others Vs. M/S. Canara Bank and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(3)KantLJ107; 2011(3)KCCR1892; 2011AIR(Kar)110

1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the auction notice dated 12.6.2010 issued by the respondent and published in The Hindu, (Mangalore Edition), dated 13.6.2010 and all further proceedings held pursuant thereto. 2. The copy of the auction sale notice is produced at Annexure-‘C’ to the writ petition. The property in question is 97 cents of land in T.S.No.503, R.S.No.193 of Mangalore Thota Village in Mangalore City Corporation, consisting of building bearing Nos.974,975,976-08 of 92. The boundaries are also mentioned in the very notice. The auction was scheduled to be held on 15.7.2010 at 3.30 P.m. The reserve price was shown as Rs.55 Lakhs. However, as per the terms and conditions, the intending bidders would have to deposit earnest money (EMD) of Rs. 55,000/- being 10% of the reserve price. 3. The sale notice is questioned on the ground that the reserve price fixed in the sale notice was abnormally low and is less than the Government’s valuation which has resulted i...

Dr. (Mr.) C. Madhusoodan Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Othe ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR149(SN); 2011ILR(Kar)1993; 2012(3)KantLJ71

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 23.12.2006 written by the Senior Manager - Personnel (EE) addressed to the petitioner vide Annexure-C and quash the office order dated 9.5.2007 issued by the Senior Manager- Personnel (EE), vide Annex-J and etc.,) 1. The petitioner has sought for (a) quashing the letter/order dated 23.12.2006 sent by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-‘C’, by which the petitioner was informed that his request for voluntary retirement was not accepted, (b) quashing the order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-‘J’ accepting the resignation tendered by the petitioner and the order at Annexure-‘K’ dated 15.6.2007 relieving the petitioner from duties pursuant to the resignation of the petitioner, (c) a declaration that Clause 10(ii) of Annexure-‘I’ to Annexure-‘A’ is arbitrary and ultra vires of Article...