Karnataka Court May 2011 Judgments

Smt Maryjohn Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep, by Its Secretary to Governme ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dtd 1.4.09 vide Annex-F passed by the special deputy commissioner, Bangalore district. Issue order/direction/writ of nature of writ of mandamus to the R2 Forebering him from proceedings in the matter again to prevent legal injury to the petitioners.) 1. Grants made by government in respect of gomal lands located in the villages within the revenue jurisdiction of Jala Hobli have been subject matter of non-ending litigation and also fertile breeding ground for corruption and nepotism, what with revenue officials acting in an arbitrary, irregular and whimsical manner. But nevertheless persons claiming interest in such revenue lands keep invoking their jurisdiction and try to manipulate the revenue records. Such persons in order to strike at their competitors or rival claimants and to wriggle out of the long inevitable delay in the process of getting favourable o...

H.S. Shivaraju Vs. Smt. Manjulamma and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(5)KantLJ509; 2011(4)KCCR2795; 2011ILR(Kar)4328;

1. This miscellaneous second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.10.2008 in R.A. No. 24 of 2007 whereby the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S. No. 185 of 1994, dated 7.1.2005 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya has been set aside and suit is remanded directing the Trial Court to record its finding on all the issues framed by it. 2. The 2nd defendant/respondent is in this appeal. 3. Heard, From what is urged and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge and the Appellate Court, it is noticed that Smt. Manjulamma the First respondent herein had filed a suit against the appellant and others seeking decree to declare her as legatee under Will executed by the owner of the properties in question. The appellant and other respondents resisted the suit denying genuineness of the Will, its validity and questioned maintainability of the suit referring to provisions of section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 w...

S. Rekaha and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Housing and ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to hold that the Acquisition of the writ petition schedule land by Annexure-C dated 21.4.04 issued by the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent, Annexure-D dated 3.2.2005 issued for and on behalf 1st respondent as statutory lapsed by virtue of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.) 1. In these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the notification dated 21.04.204 at Annexure-‘C’ issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and notification dated 03.02.2005 which is produced at Annexure-‘D’ by contending that acquisition has lapsed in the instant case on account of non-compliance with Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’). 2. According to the petitioners, the scheduled land bearing Sy.No.87/2 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas at Devanoor Village of Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk was an ancestral property of one Javaraiah ...

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by Its Managing Direct ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to quash the agreement referred to in notification dt.7.3.2008 in so far as it relate to Ann-VIII and IX entered into between the R1 and R2 and published by the R1, as at Ann-A and etc., Misc.W.9101 of 2009 is filed under order I Rule 10 of code of civil procedure, 1908 r/w Rule 39 of the Writ proceedings Rules, 1977 praying to permit deletion of respondent Nos.10, 26, 40 and 47 with liberty to implead the transferee of the permits held by said respondents and etc., Misc.W.9102 of 2009 is filed under order V Rule 9(5) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w Rule 39 of the Writ proceedings Rules, 1977 praying to hold that the service of notice on Resp. Nos.2, 5, 7, 24, 41, 61, 70, 71, 85 and 91 may be held as sufficient for the reasons submitted in paragraph 5 Supra and etc., Misc.W.10 of 2010 is filed under order 22 Rule r/w Sec. 151 CPC of Code of Civil Procedure praying to permit Applicant t...

M N Priyadatta Son of M Narayanadas. Vs. the State of Karnataka and or ...

Court: Karnataka

1. These writ petitions have come up for orders on Misc W No 8899 for direction, which is an application made by the writ petitioner under Order (sic) 226(3) of the Constitution of India [the word 'order' should read as Article], seeking for the further relief through this application as under: "To issue directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara to expunge the remarks made in the official memorandum dated 4.9.2010 with reference to the pendency of the writ petition and issue a fresh official memorandum thereof." 2. Body of the application indicates that it has become necessary for the petitioner to seek for this further relief in the context of the subsequent development that had taken place subsequent to the passing of the interim order by .... this court on 6-8-2010 reading as under: ... Interim stay as prayed for till the next date of hearing and indicating that after the production of interim order passed by this court, while fifth respondent did issue Official Memorandum d...

Bhuvaneshwari, Wife of. Late S.Ramamurthy. Vs. Karnataka State Road Tr ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 16th November 2006. passed in M.V.C.No.3148/2004, by the VI Additional SCJ and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-2), (for short, Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of 5.67.000/-awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for 20.00 Lakhs, is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that, the claimant Nol. Is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the parents, claimant No.4 is the sister and claimant Nos.5 and 6 are the minor children of the deceased Late S. Ramamurthy. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. contending that, at about 7:30 A.M. on 01-04-2004, when the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing No.KA-34/H-171. at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA -07/F-783 came in a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, on account ...

K.V. Ranga Ramu Son of K.V.VenkatachalA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.

Court: Karnataka

1. The appellant herein was one of the three accused, who faced trial in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 and 477A of the I.P.C. as well as under Sections 5(2) read with 5(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. The trial court convicted A-l and A-3. In respect of the offences under the P.C.Act, A-l was convicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six more months. A-l and A-3 were also convicted and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 10.000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, and similar sentence earlier passed against A-1 and A-3 in respect of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. Further. A-l and A-3 were also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 468. 471 and 477-A of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo three years R.I. an...

Sri K a Somaiah. Son of Late Subramanyam. Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

1. The appellant calls in question his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolar. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for three months. In respect of the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. the appellant was sentenced to undergo S.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution in short was that, the complainant by name Sreeramappa (PW-2) went and approached the appellant herein for change of katha in respect of certain survey numbers. At the relevant time, the appellant was working as a Village Accountant at Sugatur Revenue Circle, Kolar Taluk. The accused is said to have demanded Rs.3.000/- as ...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Smt. MangalammA. and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. Both these Miscellaneous First Appeals have arisen from the same Judgment and Award dated 27.10.2006 passed in MVC No. 1517/2004 on the Tile of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Addl. MACT. Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short). 2. MFA No. 1010/2007 is filed by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment and award where under a sum of Rs.2,70,200/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. is awarded as the compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 4 together who were respectively claimant Nos.1 to 4 in the said case. 3. MFA No. 13305/2007 is filed by the claimant Nos.2 to 4 in the said case seeking enhancement in the said amount of compensation. Therefore both these MFAs are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The facts that there occurred the accident on 10.04.2004 at about 7.00 a.m. near Bommankatte Tank on Hosadurga Holalkere Road within the jurisdiction of Holalkere P.S.. taluk and di...

Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. Petitioner in these writ petitions has sought for a declaration that the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duly under Article 20 (4) (I) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' for' short) for the prescribed rate of 5% on the market guidance value as notified by the respondents and the collection of excess stamp duty at the rate of 8.4% under Article 20 (1) of the Act as illegal and without authority of law. Petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to refund the excess amount of stamp duty paid. 2. The records reveal maf M/s.Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd., was amalgamated with the petitioner-Company as per the order at Annexure-'A' passed by the High Court of judicature, at Bombay in Company Petition No.783/2008, disposed of on 24th October 2008. Thus, all the assets and liabilities of transferor company have vested with the transferee company i.e., the petitioner herein. It is needless to mention that there is no transaction of sale...