Karnataka Court April 2012 Judgments

Ms Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

NAGARATHNA J.1. M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited, which is a public sector company, has filed this writ petition assailing the notifications dated 27/02/2006 and 29/07/2006 (Annexures "F" and "G" respectively), as well as the mining lease deed bearing No.ML.2516 dated 14/02/2006 {Annexure "H") issued in favour of Respondent No.3 with regard ro 35 hectares of mining area, which according to the petitioner had been granted to it.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease in respect of 168 hectares (415 Acres) at S.ubbarayanahalii village. Sandur Taluk, Bellary District on 01/05/1979. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid area fell within the area reserved for exploitation by the State Govern mom as per notification dated 23/02/1959. That on 05/01/1980. the first respondent - Government of Karnataka had granted working permission to the petitioner over the aforesaid extent and lawful possession of the entire area was given to it and th...

Sri. Chote Sahib, Son of Mr. Syed Mahamood Sab. Vs. Sri. H.S.Nagaraja, ...

Court: Karnataka

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and was also the defendant in the connected suit filed by the respondent. It was the case of the appellant - plaintiff, that he-had purchased property measuring 40' x 35’ under a sale deed dated 31.03.1999 and that he was the absolute owner in possession of the same, which is described as the suit schedule property. it was his further case that the defendant - respondent sought to interfere with his possession and therefore, he was constrained to file a suit for bare injunction. St is the case of the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, when he was away from the sun property which was a vacant site at that point of time with a dilapidated building thereon, the appellant - plaintiff had suffered a paralytic stroke. Taking advantage of his absence, it is the plaintiff s allegation that the defendants had encroached the suit property to an exte...

Sri Ashok Kulal. Vs. the Circle Inspector of Police.

Court: Karnataka

1. This petition is tiled to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11 1/2002.2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate for State.3. The proceedings were initiated on 22.07.2002. The accused entered appearance on 13.09.2002. The instant petition was filed on 19.01.2011. There is inordinate delay on the part of petitioner for which there is no satisfactory explanation.4. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the decree passed in O.S.No.728/1999, wherein, the Civil Court has bail aside the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry officer appointed under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the final report (charge sheet) filed on the basis of enquiry report does not survive for consideration. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 1244 (in the case of M/s. Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another -vs- Union of India...

S. Bhaskar. Son of Sri. H.R.Sreenivasalu. Vs. Sn. D.C. Shevakumar.

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard die learned counsel for the appellant. The counsel for the respondent having been served, remains unrepresented.2. The suit was one tor recovery of money. It transpires that the appellant had let out a portion of his property in favour of the plaintiff, to run a Bar and Restaurant, subject to the respondent obtaining a Bar Licence. Accordingly, the plaintiff - respondent had paid an advance amount in favour of the present appellant. Since the plaintiff was unable to secure a licence, and was unable to run the Bar, he chose to redeliver possession of the property that was taken on rent, in favour of the present appellant. The appellant however, was not in a position to refund the advance amount paid. In the alternative, it transpires that the appellant had executed sale deeds in respect of three parcels of land, to offset the advance amount that was received from the plaintiff. This has been stated in the plaint itself. However, the plaintiff while admitting the said sale trans...

Karthik, Son of N. Dorai and anr. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.

Court: Karnataka

1) Petitioners have been arrayed as Accused Nos.3 & 4 in Crime No. 18/2012 of Kudur Police Station, in Ramanagara District. The petitioner and other accused persons alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 394 of the IPC.2) According to the case of the prosecution, one Vaikunta Prasad, son of Late Narayana T., resident of Kudur Town, Magadi Taluk, lodged a report at 02:00 a.m. on 14.01.2012, based on which, the aforesaid case came: to be registered against four unknown persons for the aforesaid offences.3) According to the complaint allegations at about 10:00 p.m. on 13.01.2012, when the complainant was proceeding in his car towards his house from the petrol bunk, a Tata Sumo vehicle came in the opposite direction and stopped the vehicle in front of his car; that from Tata Sumo vehicle three persons came to him and took him forcibly to the Tata Sumo vehicle and gagged his mouth; that four other persons were also there in Tata Sumo vehicle that the co...

N. Rangaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Water Resources De ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2223

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order/notice dated 09.03.2012 passed by the fourth respondent vide Annexure-H to the writ petition etc.)1. Workman is calling in question notice dated 09.03.2012 Annexure -H issued by the fourth respondent intimating the petitioner that his services would be retrenched with effect from 08.04.2012.2. Heard Sri S B Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M R C Ravi for respondents No 2 to 4 and Sri Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No 1 to 3. Perused the impugned notice.3. Facts in brief leading to filing of this writ petition are as under:Petitioner was engaged as stenographer on daily wage basis by fourth respondent in the year 1992 and on account his alleged termination in July 1993 a dispute came to be raised by the petiti...

P. Narayanaswamy Vs. the Land Tribunal and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012ILR(Kar)2654; 2012(3)KCCR2387

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Order dated 14.6.2010, passed by the 1st Respondent in favour of the 4thRespondent vide Annexure-A, etc.)1. The petitioner has sought to issue a writ of certiorari, by quashing the order dated 14.06.2010, passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No. LRM(A)(I) 50-3/83-84 in favour of the 4th respondent at Annexure - ‘A’ and to dismiss the application filed by the father of the 4th respondent under Rule 7(4) of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and the Rules 1966, dated 26.04.1983 or in the alternative, to remit the matter for considering the impleading application filed by the petitioner (dated 31.05.2010) before the 1st respondent.2. According to the petitioner, who is said to be the grandson of Smt. Puttaparvathammanni W/o Late Chikka Papaiah, Smt. Puttaparvarthammanni has donated the property in question bearing Sy. Nos.36/1...

A K Chandrashekar Son of Kenchaiah. Vs. Sri C GovindegowdA.

Court: Karnataka

1. This is a defendant's second appeal aggrieved by the order of the Addl Sessions Judge. Hassan on 21.12.2006 in RA 213/2006 allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, reversing the order of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn... Hassan in OS 186/1999 on 24.11.2005. Plaintiffs filed a representative suit against the defendant for declaration that the plaint schedule road i.e., 3 Main, 6 Cross, is a public road measurign 30 feet and consequently to direct the defendant to remove the stones laid in the portion of the road shown as EJKH in the rough sketch by way of a mandatory injunction and also for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from making any further construction by encroaching any portion of the schedule road, and for costs.2. It is averred in the plaint, the suit road measuring 30 feet east-west and runs north-south as per the approved CDP of Hassan Urban Development Authority at Hemavathi Nagar, Hassan, is shown as AROD in the rough sketch and the portion of the encr...

B.Siddappa Son of Basappa and anr. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.

Court: Karnataka

1. In this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 17/12 of Jayanagar Police Station in Shimoga registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 IPC read with 34 IPC have sought for relief of anticipatory bail.2. The first petitioner has been working as CEO of Taluk Panehavath, Shimoga while the second petitioner is the District Programme Officer and Child Development Project Officer, Shimoga coming under the administration of Taluk Panchayath, Shimoga. One A.N.Pranesh working as Assistant Accounts Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Shimoga lodged a report on 21.2.2012 alleging misuse of his official seal by these two petitioners and illegally drawing the amounts from the Treasury and misappropriating the same. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid cases came to be registered and investigation was taken up, On coming to know of the registration of the case, the petitioners approached th...

H.S.Shamanna and ors. Vs. Smt. Lakshmi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. These appeals are heard and disposed of together, as they arise out of a common judgment.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.3. The appeal in RFA 1148/2002 is filed by the plaintiffs and the connected appeal in RFA 1188/2002 is filed by defendant no.1.3. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court was as follows:-That the suit schedule property was a portion of land in Survey No. 13 of Lakkasandra Village. It was land, which was regranted to the ancestors of the plaintiffs, namely, one Smt. Subbamma, and which was the subject matter of a civil suit in O.S.No. 41/1968 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore District. In terms of a compromise decree, dated 23.1.1970, an area to the extent of eleven and one-eighth gunta fell to the share of Subbamma and Rajamma. This area was converted into house sites and the layout thus formed was called Subbaraju Layout.  per the layout plan, site nos. 22,31,40,47, and 56 were ...