Karnataka Court April 2012 Judgments
Smt. Thimmakka, Wife of. Chennappa and ors. Vs. the Chief Secretary to ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
A. M. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J.1. Petitioners were the owners of lands situated in Thattanahali Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The lands of the petitioners were acquired for development of industrial area by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board under preliminary notification dated 01.02.2003 and final notification dated 15.03.2004, issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'Act'). Award was passed on 30.11.2005. The petitioners consented for payment and executed indemnity bonds, where after, the agreed amount was paid during 2005, in full settlement of their claim.2. Some other owners of the lands acquired under the same notifications did not enter into agreements and receive the compensation amount. They being dissatisfied with the award passed on 30.11.2005, sought reference to the Civil Court for determination of the market value of Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore - 560 001.5. The Special Land Acquis...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Thukral Son of. Shivlal Thukral. and ors. Vs. Cyma Exports Pri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
ANANDA BYRAREDDY, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.3. The appellants were the plaintiffs. It was the case of the plaintiffs, that they had entered into m agreement dated 17.6.1979 with the first defendant, which is % private limited company, engaged in the construction of multi-storeyed buildings and in respect of the project known as Garden Apartments at No.21, Grant Road, Bangalore, envisaging the construction of three blocks of buildings, the plaintiffs proposed to purchase an apartment bearing No.5, on the fifth floor of a block, known as Rajanigandha'. In terms of the agreement, the apartment was to be completed in all respects and fit for occupation on or about 30.6.1980 and was to be handed over to the plaintiffs. The total consideration was Rs. 1,80,000/-. The amount was payable ii instalments, as provided for under the agreement corresponding to completion of the sever...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.Kashinathaiah Son of Shankararadhya and ors. Vs. the State of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of respondent to consider their one Mr. Shankararadhya. They have sought for a direction to the second representation dated 26.8,2011 vide Annexure-A for dropping the acquisition proceedings in view of non-implementation of the Scheme and non-taking of possession of the property in accordance with law. Petitioners have also sought for a direction to the respondents to compensate them by allotting suitable sites in any other layouts formed subsequently.2. The land bearing Sy.No.121/2A, measuring 40 guntas situated at H. Malligere Village, Duddha Hobli, Taluk is the ancestral property of the petitioners and they are in possession of the property.The said land came to be acquired by the second respondent in the year 1976 for forming and allotting house sites under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act,. 1972. Certain other properties were also accused for the very purpose. According to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sundrabai and Others Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
Venugopala Gowda, J1. Petitioners are the wife and children of one Arjuna Nagendrasa Kathare, who purchased the land bearing Sy.Nos.789/16 and 786/6 of Ranebennur Village from Hanumantappa Basappa Basenayakar and Huchchappa Tai Hanumavva Basenayakar, under a registered Sale Deed dated 16.05.1968. Mutation entry in respect of the said property was made in the name of Arjunsa Nagendrasa Kathare on 15.05.1971 vide Annexure-B.2. On 02.06.2007, 3rd respondent filed an appeal, under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act”), before the 2nd respondent, challenging the Mutation Entry No.7787 dated 15.05.1971 i.e., after about 35 years. The said appeal was allowed on 18.05.2009 vide order as at Annexure-F petitioners, questioned the said order, by filing a revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act, before the 1st respondent. The revision petition was dismissed by an order dated 11.11.2010, as at Annexure-C. This writ petition is directed ag...
Tag this Judgment!Max New York Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. V. Narayana
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
K. Ramanna, President This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the Opposite Parties with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.02.2011 passed by the DF, Bangalore Urban in Complaint No.2507/2009 whereby complaint filed by Respondent came to be allowed in part directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards settlement of the policy bearing No. 456578194 with interest at 9% p.a from 31.03.2009 till the date of payment and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- and directed to comply the same within four weeks from the date of order. Assailing the same, appellants have come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 11 days caused in preferring this appeal supported by an affidavit of Sri. Syed Asif, Manager (Claims) explaining the reasons for the delay in preferring this appeal. 3. After service of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel and re...
Tag this Judgment!Raja at Srinivasa, Son of Hanumanthabhovi. Vs. the State of KamatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
1. This is an Appeal filed by the accused under Section 374(2) r/w Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, through legal aid and assistance given by High Court Legal Services Committee, challenging the impugned judgment dated 4.11.2003 made in S C rl.No.228/2000 on the file of I Addl. Sessions judge at Tumkur, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of 2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal may be stated as under:P.W17/Ramesharv father of the deceased-child, lodged a complaint with Gubbi Police stating that he belong with his wife/P.W18-Hamsa, brother and children had camped in Nittur Village for the purpose of doing business in polishing of utensils and on 21.6.2000 at about 9.00 p m, he along with his family members, had slept in the courtyard of the house of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms Saihavahana Ispat Limited. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
NAGARATHNA, J.1. The petitioner, which is a Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, with the object of carrying on business of mining operation and export of minerals, has filed this writ petition, assailing the Notifications dated 27/02/2008 and 29/07/2006 vide Annexures “W" and "Q" respectively, as well as mining lease executed in favour of respondent No.3 [Annexure "F”]. A direction is also sought for consideration and grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner pursuant to its application dated 29/12/1992 (Annexure "A").2. It is the case of the petitioner that it has established a pig-iron manufacturing unit in the year 1992 In Ananthpur District, Andhra Pradesh which is about 20 kms away from Bellary. The raw material for manufacturing pig-iron is procured from the lessees, who have mining leases in the State of Karnataka, That since the petitioner did not have any mining lease for captive consumption, it applied for grant of mini...
Tag this Judgment!Somashekar at Somma, Son of Late ChandrappA. Vs. the State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
1. The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2 in C.C.No.32071/11 on the file of the V Additional CMM, Bangalore City registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC.2. One S. Vanajakshi, wife of accused No. 1 -J.Suresh is the deceased in this case. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was pestering her husband accused No. 1 for gold ornaments. However, accused No. 1 was not in a position to satisfy her demands and in order to put an end to the demand being made by his wife, he decided to do away with her life and in furtherance of the said intention on 22.7.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. he administered her sleeping tablets with some eatables and slapped on her cheek as a result she died and thereafter secured the presence of this petitioner and by luring him that he would waive off the loan due by him (this petitioner) to an extent of 30,000/- if he helps him (accused No. 1) in disposing the dead body and in addition, accused No.1 gave 7,000...
Tag this Judgment!Vishalakshi at Vishalamma Wife of. Sri M.RamakrishnA. Vs. the Special ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the endorsement at Annexure-L, dated 2.3.2012 issued by the first respondent. She has also sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to disburse compensation amount in her favour.2. One Smt. Nagarathnamma was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.19/P2 measuring 4 acres, situated at Yelladadlu Villaoe, Khora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk. Petitioner is stated to have purchased the property through registered sale deed as per Annexure-B from Smt.Nagarathnamma on 29.5.1995. Subsequently, the land came to be acquired for the purpose of formation of industrial layout, by respondent No.1, The name of the petitioner is shown as the owner of the land in the award. Thereafter, the compensation is deposited before the concerned authority. The petitioner made apollcation for grant of compensation in her favour based on the aforementioned records. The said application came to -ejected intimating the petitioner that the be compensation cannot be disbursed in her favou...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
NAGARATHNA, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the notifications dated 27.02.2006 and 29.07.2006 [Annexures-E & G) respectively and the mining lease dated 14.03.2006 (Annexure-F) issued in favour of the third respondent. A direction is also sought to consider the application for mining lease dared 04.04.1996 (Annexure-B).2. The petitioner, which is a company, has set up an integrated steel plant in the State of Karnataka. It had applied for grant of a mining lease over an area of 1,776 acres in Kumaraswamy Range. Sandur Taluk. Bellary District, on 04.04.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that the said application was not considered despite repeated representations. The petitioner learnt that the third respondent had also made an application for grant of mining lease on 31.07,1980 for 275 acres in S.M. Block. According to the petitioner, the said application stood deemed rejected on 31.04.1981 as per Rule 24(1) of the Mining Concession Rules. 1960 (hereinaft...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »