Karnataka Court September 2011 Judgments

K. Anbazhagan Vs. the Superintendent of Police, State of Tamilnadu and ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying to quash the decision of R-1 D.V.A.C., top hold further investigation purported to be under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C as disclosed in letter dated 15/06/2011 addressed by Dy. Superintendent of Police, D.V.A.C., to the Hon’ble Spl. Judge, Bangalore, and as per Annexure-E and all further proceedings pursuant thereto. (2) Direct that in all cases such as Criminal Petitions, Criminal Revision Petitions etc., arising out of Spl. C.C. No. 208/2004, pending on the file of the court of Spl. Judge and XXXVI Addl. S.J., (CCH-37), Bangalore, the R-1 D.V.A.C has to be represented by the R-2 special Public Prosecutor (appointed by the State of Karnataka as per the directions of Supreme Court in transfer petition (Crl. Nos.77-78/2003 dated 18/11/2003) or in the alternative, to make the said R-2 Special Public Prosecutor a party in all such proceedings and hear him. (30 Direct that the proceedings in Spl. C.C No, 208/2004 p...

Veerabhadreshwara Industrial Training College, Rep, by Its Secretary, ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that Section 18 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 as ultravires the constitution of India and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence null and void, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, etc.,) 1. The petitioner has called into question the proceedings initiated by the respondents – authorities for the compulsory acquisition of his/its land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas out of the total extent of 2 acres 10 guntas standing at Sy.No.74/1 of Alanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk, for the formation of the Ring Road in Mysore. The preliminary and final notifications came to be issued on 03.10.2006 and 27.02.2008 respectively. Though the petitioner has made as many as seven prayers, it proposes to confine itself to only one prayer – declaring that the Government Order, dated 10.06.2008 (Annexure-V) as illegal and for a consequ...

Smt. Renuka and Others Vs. Smt. Siddavva and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

1. The appellants in these appeals are the legal representatives of one Shankar Gouda Patil. The controversy consists of claims for occupancy rights made by late Ramappa S/o. Gurappa Allapura (hereinafter called ‘the tenant’) under Section 48 – A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and an application for resumption under S.15 of the Act made by one late Subhash, S/o. Shankar Gouda Patil, in respect of lands bearing R.S.Nos. 50/1 measuring 7 acres 25 guntas, and 26/1A measuring 5 acres 25 guntas, situated at Adaragunchi Village, Hubli Taluk. 2. The material facts to the extent of those not in controversy are the following: The lands in question belonged to Shankar Gouda Patil. The tenant made an application on 30.05.1974 in Form No. 7 seeking registration of occupancy rights by stating that he has been cultivating the lands as a tenant for the past 18 – 20 years. After notice to the landlord, the Land Tribunal by an order 19.0...

Raghunatharao Patil Vs. B. Basappa

Court: Karnataka Gulbarga

Shylendra Kumar, J 1. Contempt jurisdiction is essentially meant to uphold the majesty of law; the authority and the efficacy of the judicial system and may be incidental to ensure that the orders passed by this Court are not belittled and disregarded by persons against whom such orders are passed. 2. Mere non-compliance with an order passed by this Court by a person ipso facto will not give cause for initiating proceedings against the person in the contempt jurisdiction, unless, it is demonstrated that non-compliance or disregard of an order is deliberate and intentional and has the effect of bringing down the majesty or law and efficacy of the legal system. 3. Orders obtained by the individuals for furtherance of their private interest can only be in civil jurisdiction and through the process as recognized by the present legal system. 4. Writ jurisdiction is a constitutional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by the Constitution essentially to keep under check, the other two or...

Bharathi and Others Vs. Dhanalakshmi and Another

Court: Karnataka

(Appeal is filed under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2008 in OS 4522/2003 by the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.) Appeal is by defendants 2 to 5 challenging the order of the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS 4522/2003 on 20.12.2008. In respect of the suit properties at the hands of the father Muninarayanappa, his only daughter Dhanalakshmi filed a suit against the defendants viz., the mother, and brother’s wife and children, for 1/3rd share. Earlier to the death of Muninarayanappa i.e., during the lifetime of Muninarayanappa, there was a suit filed by the present plaintiff along with her brother Ramanjaneya seeking for partition and 1/3rd share. The said suit ended in compromise in respect of property in Sy.No.159 measuring 3.20 acres. In the compromise, 1.00 acre was given to the plaintiff and her brother Ramanjaneya. Remaining property was retained by their father Muninarayanappa. After the death ...

H.N. Veerabhadrachar Vs. the Bangalore Development Authority, by Its C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2127

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 11.9.2009 vide Annexure-P. Direct the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to site No.L2694, Block No.6, Sir M. Visveshwaraya Layout, Bangalore measuring [12X18] mtrs. by accepting the balance allotment price along with delayed period interest.) 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order, dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure-P) passed by the respondent cancelling the allotment of site. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person. The doctor has assessed the disability at 60%, as is evident from the medical certificate (Annexure-A). He sought the allotment of the site in the category of the physically handicapped for whom 2% sites are earmarked as per Rule 11(1)(g) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called ‘the said Rul...

B.V. Harinarayana Reddy Vs. Kumari Chukki Nanjunda Swamy and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of the India praying to set aside the order dated 15.10.09 passed by the learned III Addl. Judge, family court, Bangalore, ON I.A. under Sec.151 CPC, in F.D.P.No.1/2002, the certified copy of which is filed at Annex-J, thereby allowing the application for Re-Issuance of delivery warrant in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule.) 1. The petitioner is one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.49/1992 on the file of the Family Court, Bangalore for partition against the father, who is the respondent No.3 and two others. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the first defendant before the Family court that it has no jurisdiction to try a suit for partition. The Family Court over-ruled the objection. The first defendant aggrieved by the said order filed W.P.No.13839/1999. In the writ proceedings, the matter was referred to Lok Adalath for settlement. The parties arrived at a compromise...

Sri.Ramesh Keshav, So Late Keshav and ors. Vs. C.B.i., Banking Securit ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER 1. As all these petitions arise out of the ease in C.C.No. 17181/09 on the file of 17th Additional CMM, Bangalore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Petition No.5545/10 have been arraigned as accused Nos. 1 and 2, petitioner in Criminal Petition No,740/II has been arraigned as accused No.3 while the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3386/2011 has been arraigned as accused No.4 in the aforesaid case. Inspector of Police, CBI. BS & PC, Bangalore filed charge sheet alleging offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC as against these petitioners and another who has been arraigned as accused No.5. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by R.Vaidyanatha, Chief Regional Manager of Indian Over-Seas Bank, on 6.3.2008, the CBI registered the case and lookup investigation. The sum and aubstanee of the written complaint is as under: that fraud has been committed in availment of c...

A.G. Ferrostaal Vs. Bharati Shipyard Ltd. and Another

Court: Karnataka

(This Appeal is filed under Section 37(1)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, against the order dated 14.1.2011 passed in A.A.No.6/2010 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore allowing the Arbitration Application filed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.) (This Appeal is filed under Section 37(1)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, against the order dated 14.1.2011 passed in A.A.No.7/2010 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore allowing the Arbitration Application filed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.) These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 14.1.2011 passed in A.A.Nos.6/2010 and 7/2010 by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. 2. The facts in brief are as under:- Appellant is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany and was formerly known as MAN Ferrostaal AG. It has its Principal Office at Hohenzollernstrabe, Germany. The...

R. Nagaraja Shetty and Others Vs. the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner is the consumer of the second respondent. The petitioner challenged the validity and illegality of the ‘Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations 2004 as being violative of Sections 42,45 and 46 of the Karnataka Electricity Act, 2003. The provisions of Section 42(1), 45 and 46 are extracted hereunder for convenient reference: 42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access – (1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act. 45. Power to recover charges – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, the prices to be charged by a distribution licensee for the supply of electricity by him in pursuance of Section 43 shall be in accordance with such tariffs fixed from time to time and conditions...