Karnataka Court March 2012 Judgments

Abdul Naveed Vs. Dr. Masbah Najam

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner has filed M.C. No. 3 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and for certain other reliefs. The respondent has filed objections to the said petition. The parties have let in evidence and the matter is posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner has filed two applications. I.A. Nos. 13 and 14 under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Order 16, Rule 6 of the CPC respectively. In the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A. No. 13, the petitioner has stated that the father of the respondent and the respondent herself have given their statement before the police with regard to the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. R.W. 1 in her evidence has also admitted the same. The said document is necessary to establish his case. In the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A. No. 14, th...

Lathifa Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(2)KCCR1480; 2012ILR(Kar)2220

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the communication/letter dated 25-4-2011 issued by the 5threspondent, etc.)1. The question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vitla Police Station is justified in freezing the bank account of the petitioner under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?2. The petitioner contends that on 21.3.2011, Belthangady Police have illegally detained her son, daughter, brother. Aggrieved by the same, she gave a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Mangalore, to release them from the illegal custody. The Sup- erintendent of Police neither gave any reply nor released them from the illegal custody. Therefore, the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in W.P.No.55/2011 before this Court. This Court issued the notice to the Police on 25.3.2011 and sought status report in the matter. On the same day, the detenues were prod...

R. Krishna Reddy Vs. Smt. Komala and Another

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial court and it was the case of the plaintiff that he was the absolute owner of vacant land appurtenant to the constructed portion of his property in Domlur, Bangalore, bounded on the East by road, West by the plaintiffs remaining property, North by property belonging to the Bangalore Development Authority and south by the plaintiffs property. The vacant land is shown as measuring 53’ East to West and 45’ North to South which is described in the suit schedule and is treated as the suit schedule property. It was the plaintiffs cast that his paternal grandfather one Sarakki Nanjappa had two sons. Muniswamappa was born to his first wife, Venkataswamappa, Gurappa, Nagappa and Ramaiah were born to his second wife. The plaintiff was the grandson of...

M/S. Mantri Developers Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and Anot ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012ILR(Kar)1955; 2012(3)KCCR2119

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 13.10.2011 addressed to the petitioner herein issued by R2, vide Annexure - B, etc.) 1. M/s. Walden properties private limited is the owner of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 15/ to 30/3 of Ramagondanahalli Village and Sy. Nos. 348 and 385 of Ammani Bellandur Khane Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, totally measuring 49 acres 8 guntas. The petitioner is a registered Joint Agreement Holder and the Power of Attorney for developing the aforementioned lands. The joint development agreement entered into between the petitioner and M/s. Walden Properties Limited is found at Annexure A to the Writ petition. The lands are converted for residential use pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner, inasmuch as the lands were designated for residential use in the Comprehensive Development Plan (Master Plan) of Bangalore City. Thereafter the petitioner ...

Smt. S. Shakunthala Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents’ Counsel. 2. Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 15-11-2011 vide Annexure-N to allot an alternate site in her favour in BTM Layout, Bangalore or in Hosur-Sarjapur Layout, Bangalore. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to get the relief in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority v Smt. Radha Bai and Others 1 2001(4) Kar. L.J. 196: ILR 2001 Kar: 416. 4. Records reveal that the petitioner is stated to have purchased the site formed in Sy. Nos. 12/5 and 14/6 of Tavarekere Village. Bangalore South Taluk. Said Lands were acquired for formation of BTM Layout. The petitioner and other site owners filed W.P. Nos. 30571 to 30594 of 1982. The said writ petitions came to be allowed directing the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioners therein for grant of alternate site under Rule ...

N.H. Krishna (Since Deceased) by His L.Rs. Vs. Krishnachar

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court who had filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a Promissory Note, said to have been executed by the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff was that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the basis of the Promissory Note dated 10-3-1996 and received the amount, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, or 2% per month, on the said amount and thereafter, had failed to repay the same on several demands made by the plaintiff. Ultimately, the defendant had issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- dated 22-10-1997 drawn on Canara Bank, Channapatna Branch, towards part satisfaction of the loan amount. However, when the same was presented for realisation, had been returned with an endorsement of the banker that there were insufficient funds in the account and therefore, it was dishonoured. It is in that background ...

T. Rathna Vs. T.N. Rathnamma and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. These two appeals have been filed by the 4th defendant challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge/Fast Track court Judge, Mandya in R.A.No.234 of 2005 and R.A.No.235 of 2005 respectively on 24-3-2005. 2. Plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3 in RSA No.1070 of 2009) who are the wife and children of Puttaswamy S/o Channaiah and the plaintiff (1st respondent in RSA No.1071 of 2009), daughter of late Channaiah, filed two suits for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/16th and 1/4th share respectively and for settlement of accounts and other relief. The 1st defendant in both the suits is the wife of one Channaiah and they had three children-Savithramma, Sarojamma and Puttaswamy. Kempamma sold the suit property to the appellant on 10-6-1996 as she succeeded to her husband’s-Channaiah estate who died on 13-12-1982. In respect, of the property which was sold by Kempamma in favour of the appellants, two suits were filed-one by the daughter-in-law of Kempamma, i.e., Rat...

Sri Hanumanthappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J 1. The appellant calls in question his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in respect of the offences punishable under secs. 7, 13 (1) (d) R/w sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused while working as an Inspector in Karnataka Slum Clearance Board, demanded Rs. 2,000/- as bribe from the complainant. Aslam Pasha to do an official favour to the complainant’s wife in the matter of conducting spot inspection and to send a favourable report, so that the complainant and his wife can avoid vacating the house, where they were put up with and any threat of leaving the house will not arise. The complainant not willing to pay the bribe amount lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha police as per Ex.P.11. This was followed by the entrustment mahazar being drawn as per Ex.P.2. It is the prosecution case that the trap was successful in the accused being caught after receiving the amount from the com...

Prasad S.L.N. Vs. Sky High Fashion Private Limited, Bangalore and Anot ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner who is the Proprietor of the Supra Kraft Fact has filed the instant petition under Section 433(e), 433(f) and Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying that the respondent-company be ordered to be wound up. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-company which is engaged in the business of marketing garments had placed orders with the petitioner for supply or corrugated boxes, printed cartons etc., for their business purpose. In that regard, the supplies made by the petitioner to the respondent-company has been indicated in the ledger maintained by the petitioner. An extract of the ledger for the period from 1-3-2007 to 31-3-2008 is produced to contend that after deducting the payments made by the respondent-company, they were still due in a sum of Rs.6,65,599.04 ps. The petitioner alleges that the respondent-company had failed to pay the said amount and even though a letter dated 11-5-2009 was addressed, the respondent-company neither responded to t...

Chikkananje Gowda Vs. Siddalingaradhya

Court: Karnataka

1. This is a defendant’s second appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolar in R.A. No.143 of 1998 on 17-9-2005 confirming the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kolar in O.S.No.438 of 1989 on 15-4-1998. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit stating that 1/3rd portion of the property in Sy.No.24 was sold in favour of the defendant by his father and the remaining extent was retained by them and that there is encroachment of 20 guntas by the defendant. Of course, in the plaint, there is a mention made with respect to the boundaries and the extent of land available to the defendant i.e., the specific case of the plaintiff is, Sy.No.24/1 was sold in favour of this defendant by his father and the extent is mentioned as 3.06 acres. According to the plaintiff, 20 guntas of land is in defendant’s possession and he has sought for a declaration and possession as against the defendant to that extent on the ground there is encroac...