Karnataka Court August 2011 Judgments
Sri H B JayappA. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1. Misc. W. 5332 of 2011 for early hearing is ordered and the main matter is taken up for disposal.2. Purchasers of agricultural lands which had been originally granted in favour of persons belonging to scheduled caste community try all tricks in the trade to sustain such purchases though purchases had been in violation of the terms of the grant in favour of the original grantee and the original grantee or legal heirs of the original grantee had transferred such granted land in favour of ambitious purchasers in violation of the conditions imposed at the time of the grant. Land granted in favour of persons belonging to depressed class if is transferred within three months, it is inevitably in violation of the condition of the grant and a simulated ground that the subject land was a land purchased by the grantee in a public auction sale and is only a still born ground as the support is sought Lo be drawn from a saguvali chit issued at that time as submitted by Sri. Panduranga Nayak, lear...
Tag this Judgment!Sri M. Muniraja Son of Sri N. Byra Reddy. Vs. the State of Karnataka a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1. This petition is tiled seeking for mandamus to direct respondent Nos. I and 2 to initiate appropriate action against respondent Nos. 3 to 6 forthwith in respect of Annexures 'A', 'B'. T' and 'F'. 2. Annexure 'A' is the complaint received by the Police Inspector. High Grounds Police Station. Bangalore, regarding violation of law and criminal negligence alleging that the patient was forcibly shifted from Mallige Medical Centre - respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and that the respondents have not taken action in accordance with law. Annexure B' is the complaint filed before the Police Commissioner reiterating the averments made in the complaint - Annexure 'A' together with acknowk dement. Annexure C is the representation given to the Health Minister reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Annexure 'D is the letter of the Healdi Department to the Officer of the District Health and Family Welfare Department. 3. It is averred in the Writ Petition that separate complaint is filed before the ...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Srinivas Chickaballapur Taluk and Another Vs. M/S. Akshaya Financ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
(Prayer: RSA filed u/s.100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2005, passed in R.A.No.104/03 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Chickaballapur, allowing the Appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2003 passed in OS.No.46/2000 on the file of the Addl. Civil. Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Chickaballapur.) 1. This is Defendant’s second appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the Judgment and Decree passed in RA No.104/2003 by Civil Judge (Senior Division ) and JMFC, Chickaballapur dated 10.11.2005, reversing the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chickaballapur dated 13.03.2003 in OS No.46/2000, dismissing the suit. 2. This Court by order dated 29.07.2010, had admitted the above appeal after framing the following substantial question of law: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Cour...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vs. Halappa and Others
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
RAMESH, J (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the amount in dispute in this appeal is less than Rs. 10,000/- the appeal is maintainable in view of a Judgment rendered by a Learned single Judge of this Court in THE DIVIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. Vs. SURESH SUBRAY SHET AND OTHERS (ILR 2008 KAR 4366). He prays for overruling of the objection raised by the Registry re. maintainable of the appeal. 2. It is relevant to refer to sub-Section (2) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as follows: “No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.” A division Bench of this Court in RAMAIAH SETTY vs. PRAKASH (1990 (2) KAR.LJ.378) has taken the view that if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs.10,000/- no appeal is maintainable in view of the above referred statutory provision. It is obvious that the Judgment in R...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ashwathnarayana and Others Vs. Narasimhaiah and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the R4 the special deputy commissioner, Bangalore dist. Bangalore on 2.5.11 vide impugned order bearing No.Sc/St (a) 158/10-11 Vide Ann-G. Misc.W.8654 of 2011 filed under order 151 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to direct the office bearers of this Hon’ble court to list the matter at the top of the cause list in the above Writ Petition.) 1. Though the matter is posted for orders on the applications, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the main matter itself is taken up for disposal along with the applications. 2. Heard Sri. Narayanappa, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri, Abhinav Anand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, Sri. R. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 3. I.A. No.V of 2011 for production of additional documents is an application filed by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Munikrishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka by Attibele Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23/28.11.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-II. Bangalore (R) District, Bangalore in S.C.No.207/07 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing to pay a find of Rs.25,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.) 1. The sole accused who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC has preferred this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.207/07 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bangalore Rural District. 2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The deceased Shankaramma married the accused about ten years prior to the incident and they had two sons. The accused was in the habit of drinking liquor since from the beginning and he was not working and earning for the family. Therefo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. K.H. Nagaraju and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
(Prayer: This Crl.A. is filed u/Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. by the State P.P. for the State praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dt. 25-01-05 passed by the JMFC-II Court, Davanagere, in C.C. No.2745/02, acquitting the respondents-accused for the contravention of Clause 19(A) (B) and (C) of Fertilizer (control) Order 1985 P/U/S/.7 of Essential Commodities Act.) 1. The appellant has challenged the acquittal of the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, on a trial held by the JMFC., Davanagere. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The appellant herein submitted a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. stating that on 20.08.1999 the Fertilizer Inspector visited the shop of the 1st respondent, who was the retail dealer of the fertilizer mixture MFC 17:17:17 and took the sample of the said fertilizer for the purpose of testing the same under the provisions of Rule 2...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Ramachandra, Bangalore and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Departm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
(Prayer: These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 9.9.10 passed in K.SCST.136/2009-10, passed by the R3 herein, which is produced as Annexure-R and etc. Misc.W.4150 of 2011 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India R/w Sec.151 of CPC praying to vacate the interim order and etc. Misc.W.6402 of 2011 is filed under order VI Rule 7 R/w Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for amendment and etc.) 1. These writ petitions, though had been listed for passing orders on application in Misc.W.No.4150 of 2011 filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 for vacating the interim order of stay granted in these petitions and another application in Misc.W.No.6402 of 2011 filed on behalf of petitioners, has been heard on merits very extensively and while the application for amendment is formally ordered, the application for vacating stay need not be ordered separately, as writ petitions are being ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S United Breweries (Holding) Ltd, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka State Indu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/s. 32(9) of SFC act against the judgement dated: 16.1.2007 passed in Misc.No.435/99 on the file of the VI Addl. City Civil judge, Bangalore, allowing the petition filed u/s. 31(1) (aa) and 32(1) of SFC act, for recovery of money.) 1. This appeal is filed questioning the order dated 16.1.2007 passed by VI Addl. City Civil Court in Misc.No.435/1999 holding that the appellant is also liable to pay the sum as ordered, jointly or severally. 2. The records reveal that respondent No.1 herein sanctioned a loan of Rs.70.00 lakhs in favour of respondent No.2 herein. The loan agreement dated 6.3.1996 was executed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1. Third and fourth respondents herein executed surety agreement dated 6.3.1006 giving collateral security of schedule I and II properties. The appellant executed a “letter of comfort” dated 2.3.1996 as per Ex-P14. Respondent No.2 committed default and did not repay the amount as agreed. Hence, respondent No.1 ...
Tag this Judgment!WalappA. Vs. Vireshayya, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The claimant in MVC.NO.473/2003 on the file of MACT III Bagalkot is the appelant. The case of the claimant is that he along with other claimants in connected cases were moving in the lorry bearing registration No. KA 37/2 along with the goods. While so, the driver of the lorry has driven the lorry rashly and negligently. It resulted in an accident. For the agony suffered, seek for compensation. The Insurance Company has filed objections denying the accident pleaded, call upon the petitioner to prove the accident, its impact. It is also contended that the claim is exaggerated, the liability is in accordance with the terms of the policy. So pray for dismissal of the claim application. Also contend that the petitioners were unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle. So the company is not Stable to pay the compensation. 2. The Tribunal has heard this case along with the connected cases, fixed the compensation of Rs. 14,000/-. Directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »