Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments

Mrs. Saraladevi D/O Sukumar Poojary Vs. Patric Augustine Dand#8217;sou ...

Court: Karnataka

(This RFA filed U/s 96 r/w order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dt.20.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.125/1995 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM., Mangalore, dismissing the suit for partition.) Manjunath, J. The legality and correctness of the Judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore dt.20th September 2006 passed in O.S.No.125/95 is called in question in this appeal. 2. The appellant was plaintiff in the suit. The Respondent was the defendant before the court below. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the plaint schedule property and also for accounts. The plaint schedule property is a house property situated in an area of 28 cents in Sy.No.5/3 of Kodialbail village, Mangalore city enclosed with a compound along with the existing house, well, coconut trees, Mango and jack fruits trees. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff is the daughter of one Smt. Lizza ...

Venkataramanappa, Bangalore and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Bangalo ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Writ Petitions is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned notification dt. 22.11.1988 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 1.12.1988 issued by the R2 vide Annexure-B and dt.4.12.1989 issued by the R1 vide Annexure-C as illegal, null and void and unenforceable in law and etc.) 1. This writ petition filed in the year 2007 comprising of as many as 16 petitioners with payment of court fee for as many petitioners, but with a single number, purporting to be in terms of the relevant rules and orders passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, governing registration of petitions at the relevant time, has remained for examination only in respect of petitioners 2, 10, 13 and 16 and though originally one advocate Sri Vinod Prasad, had filed power for all the petitioners, with developments like the other petitioners having found solace by entering into compromise with the fourth respondent-house building cooperative society and writ pet...

Smt. Satyavva Vs. Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation by Its Commissio ...

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Reported in: 2011ILR(Kar)2004; 2011(4)KCCR2844

ABDUL NAZEER, J 1. Since common question of law and fact are involved in all these cases, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners contend that they are occupying different portions of land bearing Sy.No.36A of Unkal Village, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District. They have put up small sheds/huts on the said land and have been residing in those sheds for the past 30 to 35 years. The Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation (for short the “Corporation”) has assigned corporation number to their huts and it has been collecting taxes from them. The area in question has been declared as a slum area under Section 3 of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The petitioners have produced the tax paid receipt issued by the Corporation. The Forest Contractors and Timber Merchants’ Association Limited, Hubli, filed a petition before this Court in Writ Petition No.12420/2006 for a mandamus directing the Corporation to develop the...

Union of India by the Executive Engineer Vs. M/S NabIn Designers and C ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This MFA is filed under section 37(1) of the arbitration and consultation act against the order dated 09.07.2003 passed in A.C. No. 09/01 on the file of the learned VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCCH-11), dismissing the petition filed under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act for setting aside the award passed by the sole arbitrator on 15.12.2000 in case No. CE (Arbitration) SBL/63 following agreement No.71/TCD-(BGL) 1988-89.) 1. The Union of India is before this Court, questioning the order passed by the learned Trial Judge dismissing their application u/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the order passed by the Arbitrator in proceedings between the appellant and the respondent. 2. The facts can be summarized as under: The respondent herein was awarded three contracts for construction of Telecom Administration Building in CTO compound, at Bangalore, including internal water supply and sanitary installations by an offer lett...

Maktumsab Vs. the Director, Municipal Administration and Another

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. The petitioner contends that his father Mehaboobsab was working as a Driver with the City Municipal Council, Bagalkot. He had made an application as per Annexure ‘A’ dated 6.7.1989 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.1989. Since he did not receive any response from the second respondent with regard to his application, he continued to work with the City Municipal Council, Bagalkot, till his death i.e., 6.1.1991. It is further contended that respondent No.2 by his order dated 17.5.1991 granted retrospective voluntary retirement to the father of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.1989. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order is illegal for the reason that the rules do not authorize the second respondent to pass an order granting permission retrospectively for voluntary retirement of a public servant. The petitioner having passed SSLC examination made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds. The first respondent by him communi...

Sri. K. Jayaprakash Hegde, S/O. K. Chandrashekara Hegde, and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners in the nature of public interest litigation. The petitioners in their respective petitions have sought for writ of certiorari quashing the Official Memorandum/Order dated 28.11.1996, Government Orders dated 1.2.2000; 26.2.2000 and 13.4.2000; and for a direction to the respondents/State not to act upon the impugned Government Orders, etc.2. The brief facts persuading the petitioner to file the present writ petition in W.P.3849/2001 are:The respondents have issued impugned order dt. 13.4.2000 at Annexure-A without any constitutional empowerment to issue such notification conferring the status of Deputy Minister on a sitting Member of Parliament by providing financial facilities for providing a car at a cost of Rs.6 lakhs, recurring expenditure of Rs. 12,000/- per month by spending public money (tax payers money), therefore, it is a public injury. Hence, the intervention of the Court is needed. According to the petitioner, any litigatio...

M/S Mandovi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Director A. Sanjay Ra ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 09.10.2007 passed in MVC No.546/2004 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Member. MACT, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, awarding a Compensation of Rs. 2,02,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition till realization.) 1. This appeal is by the owner questioning the liability held against him in the judgment and award in M.V.C.No.546/2004 dated 9.10.2007 on the file of M.A.C.T., Mangalore, Dakshina kannada District. 2. Facts leading to this case are that, claimants – the parents, brother and sisters of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest for the death of one Naveen, who was traveling in a vehicle bearing No.TCR-KA-19-TC/2002-03/7, a Maruthi Car, which was brand new car and was not yet permanently registered. The said vehicle dashed against the culvert near Hiresave hobli on Bangalore-Mangalore road, a...

K.C. Prashanth Vs. Ayyappa and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the order Dt.9.9.10 in revision petition No.222/09-10 passed by the R2 special Deputy Commissioner in revision petition 222/09-10 produced at Ann-P to the WP and etc. 1. Though the matter has come up for orders on the application in Misc. Nos. 1439 and 1440 of 2011 for impleading and for direction respectively, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, The main matter itself is taken up for disposal. 2. Utilization of writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India only for the purpose of the examination of the quality of orders passed by the revenue authorities functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short “the Act ‘] and particularly while exercising powers under section 129 of the Act, in the first instance, by the Tahsildar and later either the Assistant Commissioner acting as appellate autho...

Smt. Kamala and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed paying to quash the order dated 19.2.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 684/2003, produced herewith and marked as Annexure-B, etc.) 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by which order, the appeal filed by R-2 Union was allowed and the common judgment rendered by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Consumer), Mysore, was set aside. The Joint Registrar, in his common judgment, had allowed the disputes raised by the petitioners herein and set aside the resolution of R-2 Union dated 5.9.2002. By the said resolution, R-2 had resolved to retire the petitioners with effect from September 2002 pursuant to the petitioners having opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). 2. The facts are not in dispute inasmuch as the VRS being floated by R-2 Union by Circular dated 12.10.2001. The said circular also had indicated that the scheme would be brought into force...

Mrs. Rasheeda Mehaboob Vs. Replicon Software (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

(This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the issuance of summons by 13th Addl.CMM, Bangalore, in C.C.No.30822/2009 dt.14.12.2009 in respect of petitioner only.)The petitioner who is accused No.2 and being the mother of accused No.1 is before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings against her which is pending in C.C.No.30822/09 on the file of the 13th Addl.CMM, Bangalore, and issuance of summons to the petitioner has given raise to this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts which have led to the summons being issued to the petitioner in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881, are that, the respondent-complainant approached the trial court in a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the complainant being the tenant in the premises owned by the petitioner vacated the premises and sought for refund of the deposit amount. The petitioner’s son who is accused no.1 issued two cheques to the ...