Karnataka Court November 2012 Judgments
inas Aranha Vs. Shivayya Banga and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
(RSA filed under Sec. 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2009 passed in R.A.No.551/2005 (Old No.108/1997 on the file of the Civil Judge (SR.DN) and ACJM, Karkala) 1. In this regular second appeal, the question that falls for consideration is, whether the lower Appellate Court was in error in applying the provisions of Section 29(1) of Madras Aliya Santhana Act, 1949 (the ‘Madras Act’ for short) while holding that the sale deeds executed by defendants 11 to 13 being void were not binding on defendants 1 to 10? 2. Yet another question urged is whether the lower Appellate Court has erred in entertaining the contention regarding the applicability of the provisions contained under Section 29 of the Madras Act, though the same was not pleaded before the trial Court. 3. The appellant was not a party in the trial Court, nor was he a party in the first appeal. The father of the appellant herein was the plaintiff in O.S.No.404/1987. He filed the said suit seeking...
Tag this Judgment!H. Bagya Vs. R. Savithramma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
(Prayer:These CRL.AS. are filed under Section 378(4) CR.P.C praying to set aside the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2008 in C.C. Nos. 21644/06, 21645/06 and 21647/06 Respectively passed by the court of the XII Addl. C.M.M, Bangalore, and to convict the Respondent and sentence her to pay a fine of double the cheque amount and order for compensation to the Appellant, for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act.) 1. The appellant in these appeals has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’ for short) on a trial held by Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of these appeals are as under: The appellant is the complaint in CC Nos. 21644, 21645 and 21647 of 2006 filed before the Trial Court as against the respondents respectively. It is her claim that she advanced a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to t...
Tag this Judgment!Miss. Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels Vs. Miss. P. Gunavathy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 7.07.12 passed by the judge of the XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo hall Banglore by its order dated 7.07.12 in OS No 27376/09 vide Annex-F And direct the learned judge to impund the joint development agreement dated 9.11.05 AW its amendments dated 23.05.98 and 21.12.2000 relied upon by the respondent.) 1. This writ petition is referred to the bench pursuant to an order dated 11.10.2012 passed by a learned single judge of this court. 2. The question that arose before the learned judge in the writ petition is in respect of “impounding an insufficiently stamped document”. According to the defendant, in view of Section 33 of the Karnataka stamp Act, 1957, the moment an insufficiently stamped document is produced before the Court, court has to impound the same. It was contended by the plaintiff that, the question of impounding of an insufficiently stamped d...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Vishwanath and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the time table uploaded in website dated 17.11.2012 published by R2 vide Annexure – A and direct the R2 to consider the representation dated 19.11.2012 vide Annexure – L by re-scheduling or postponing the examination.) 1. The 2nd respondent – Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short ‘Commission’) issued a Notification on 3.11.2011 inviting applications for 362 Gazetted Probationers Posts. Last date of receipt of applications was 12.12.2011. 1,38,807 applications were received in response to the said notification. Preliminary examination was conducted on 22.4.2012. List of eligible candidates for main examination was published on 6.6.2012. 7,188 candidates became eligible for the main examination, to whom the applications were sent from 12.6.2012 to 15.6.2012. The last date fixed for receipt of filed application from the candidates was 30.6.20...
Tag this Judgment!Kokila and Another Vs. the State of Karnataka by Principal Secretary t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge, who has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of disputed question of land being involved. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the owner of the land in question. According to the petitioner, it was an agricultural land. The provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 1976 Act) was not attracted. But still, by way of abundant caution, petitioner filed 4 W.A.1617/2008 an application under the 1976 Act claiming exemption from the provisions of the Act. After enquiry, the Authorities held, the petitioners are in possession of 1,249.34 sq.mtrs of excess land. The request to exempt the said land was also rejected. The petitioner has been making representations to the Authorities to retain the said land. In the meanwhile, the Act was repealed with effect from 27.06.1999. It is made clear, if possession of the land has not been taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Susheela Vs. P. Gurumurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, against the judgement and decree dated 10.6.2011 passed in M. C. No. 30/2005 on the file of senior civil judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, allowing the petition filed U/S 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce.) B.S. Indrakala J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 10.06.2011 passed in M.C.No. 30/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Bhadravathi, the respondent therein has preferred the above appeal seeking to set aside the same. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to by their respective rank as arrayed before the Court below as appellant-respondent; respondent-petitioner. 3. The petitioner filed the said M. C. No. 30/2005 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-appellant herein which was celebrated on 04.06.1998 at Kabli Thandya, Kadur Taluk as per the Hindu customs. It is further contended that after marriage, both of them st...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Venkateswara Vinayaka Temple Trust Cholanayakanahalli and Others ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
(Prayer: Mfa Filed U/O 43 Rule 1(C) Of Cpc, Against The Order Dt.17.06.2011 Passed In Misc.No.925/2009 On The File Of The 42nd Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bangalore, Dismissing The Petition Filed U/O 9 Rule 9 Of Cpc, For Restoration Of O.S.No.8646/1997 Dismissed On 12.11.2009.) JUDGMENT 1. The appellants were the plaintiffs before the Court below. They had instituted the suit for relief of permanent injunction against respondents/defendants. The suit was pending from the year 1997. Several interlocutory applications were filed and they were decided. The case was set down for plaintiffs evidence on 12.11.2009. Before that plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of plaint (IA.No.17) and it was dismissed on 11.11.2009 and the case was adjourned to 12.11.2009. On 12.11.2009, an application was filed for adjournment of suit. The learned trial Judge taking into consideration that the suit for permanent injunction was pending from the year 1997 (for over a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S. Shobha Vs. Rajaneesh Goel and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
(Prayer: This Ccc Is Filed U/Ss.11 and 12 Of The Contempt Of Court Act By The Complainant, Wherein He Prays That The Hon'ble High Court Be Pleased To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against The Accused For Disobeying The Order Dated:24.06.2011 Passed By The Hon'ble High Court In W.P.No.8426/2010.) B.V.PINTO J. ORDER 1. We have heard Smt.Shobha, the complainant/party-in-person and Sri K.N.Putte Gowda, Counsel for the accused. Perused the affidavit of the Complainant. 2. This Contempt of Court Petition is filed by the complainant to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for disobeying the order dated 24.6.2011 passed in W.P.No.8426/2010. In W.P.No.8426/2010, the petitioner had prayed for a mandamus to the respondents i.e., Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for short 'BBMP' to allot 50' x 80' feet commercial site or a corner site in a developed area in Bangalore Urban equivalent to the property lost on account of illegal encroachment and to award compensation for the consequen...
Tag this Judgment!Ammayyamma Vs. Muniswamy Since Deceased by His L.Td. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set-aside the order passed in the writ petition No. 8403/2003 dated 16.02.2009.) This appeal is preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has upheld the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the 1st respondent - Muniswamy. 2. The subject matter of these proceedings is land bearing Sy.No.100 situated in Chokkasandra Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. The said land measuring 4 acres was granted in favour of Late Ramaiah in the year 1936. He died leaving behind his second wife Smt.Ammayamma as his legal heir. The 1st respondent - Muniswamy filed Form No.7 on 30.12.1974 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land as well as Sy.No.92. At column No.8 he has mentioned that he has been cultivating the said land for the last 35 years. The second wife of Ramaiah, the appellant contested the claim de...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Karnataka Chemists and Druggist Association and Others Vs. State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
(Prayer:These Writ Petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India Praying to quash sub-section (4) of section 4 of KVAT Act, 2003 as beyond the competence of the state legislature unde entry No.54 of list II of seventh schedule to constitution of India, Insofar as the petitioners are concerned. H.G. Ramesh, J. ( Oral): The petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the ground that it is beyond the Legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The first petitioner is an Association of Chemists and Druggists. The other two petitioners are wholesale dealers in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. 2. I have heard Shri G. Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »