Karnataka Court June 2012 Judgments

VenkatappA. Vs. Venkataswamya Reddy and ors.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This RSA is filed u/Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2010 passed in R.A.No.4/2008 on the file of the Presiding Officer FTC-I, Kolar, dismissing the appeal confirming Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2007 passed in O.S.No.121/2001 on the file of the I-Addl. Civil Judge [Sr. Dn.], Kolar.)1. The appellant has challenged the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court for specific performance of the contract of Sale, which is confirmed by the first Appellate Court.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:The parties will be referred as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.The 1st respondent herein instituted the suit for specific performance of the contract of Sale Agreement, dated 21.12.2000, executed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein [defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court], agreeing to sell the suit property bearing Sy.No.36/3, measuring 1 acre 61/2 guntas out of 2 acres and 13 guntas, fully described in the schedule...

M. Ramu. Vs the Assistant Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2149

(Prayer: These writ appeals filed u/s. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.8705/2006 c/w 99/2007, 5071/2006, 4959/2006, 4900/2006, 7196/2006 and 3688/2006 dated 12.04.2012.)Vikramajit Sen, C.J.1. These Appeals assail the Order dated 12.04.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned order of the Land Tribunal Bangalore North Taluk (Tribunal for short) dated 7.02.2006.2. Late Gujjarappa had purchased agricultural land in Survey No.221 measuring 39 guntas situated at Doddigunta village, Kasaba hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and had granted a lease in favour of M.Ramu, the Appellant before us. The Appellant claims that the lease in question was agricultural in character, whereas it is contended by the Respondents that only a portion of a house thereon had been given on rent to the Appellant. On 26.12.1974, the Appellant filed an application in Form No.7 under Section 48A of the Karna...

Nagesh Devadiga at Nagesh and Others Vs. the State Rep by the Police I ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2152

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated: 03.09.2009 passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in S.C.No.81/2009, rejecting the memo filed by the accused persons/petitioners herein and requiring the accused to file fresh bail application and also demanding fresh bail bonds and sureties.) 1. The petitioners are accused in Sessions Case No.81/2009 pending on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 326, 307, 302 r/w. 34 IPC. Initially, after investigation for the aforesaid offences, a charge-sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Agency before the JMFC [II Court], Mangalore, in C.C.No.3115/2009. During the investigation, the petitioners had applied for bail before the Sessions Court and the Fast Track Court-I at Mangalore had granted bail vide its Order dated 9th February, 2009 in Crl.Misc.No.62/2009. In pursuance of the bail Order, th...

Venkatappa Vs. Venkataswamya Reddy and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2429

(Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to declare that S.206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unconstitutional, etc.)These petitions have been filed seeking for a declaration that S.206 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unconstitutional and for costs.It is stated, petitioners are small investors. For depositing their savings out of their meager income, they approached respondents 3 and 4, for earning better interest/returns. They do not have any source of income other than their investment. It is also stated specifically, they do not have income exceeding the maximum taxable limit as per S.139 A of the Act. Petitioners even filed Form 15 G as required under S.197 A of the Act to enable the 3rd and 4th respondents not to deduct tax at source as per S.193 of the Act.According to the petitioners, the 3rd and 4th respondents have informed the petitioners that even Form 15 G filed by them cannot be accepted for the purpose of exemption from deduction...

M. Ramu Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2149

(Prayer: These writ appeals filed u/s. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.8705/2006 c/w 99/2007, 5071/2006, 4959/2006, 4900/2006, 7196/2006 and 3688/2006 dated 12.04.2012.)Vikramajit Sen, C.J.1. These Appeals assail the Order dated 12.04.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned order of the Land Tribunal Bangalore North Taluk (Tribunal for short) dated 7.02.2006.2. Late Gujjarappa had purchased agricultural land in Survey No.221 measuring 39 guntas situated at Doddigunta village, Kasaba hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and had granted a lease in favour of M.Ramu, the Appellant before us. The Appellant claims that the lease in question was agricultural in character, whereas it is contended by the Respondents that only a portion of a house thereon had been given on rent to the Appellant. On 26.12.1974, the Appellant filed an application in Form No.7 under Section 48A of the Karna...

Kavitha Mahesh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and ors

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Election petition filed U/S. 81 of the representation of people Act, 1951. Praying to declare that election to K R Pura Assembly constituency as Null and Void and order fresh elections in the interest of justice and equity. As the petitioner is entitled for relief U/S. 100 [1][c] of the Representation of people Act, 1951. Since rejection of petitioners nomination paper at the threshold by the 4th respondent is illegal and improper and direct R1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against R4 as per provisions of representation of people Act. 1951 so that it serves as a deterrent and discourage such officers from violating the statutory law and helps in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens in general and petitioner in particular and etc.)1. This election petition under section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 [for short ‘the Act’], is by a person who had aspired to be an independent candidate to contest the election for seeking th...

Lucy Pinto and ors. Vs. Glary D SouzA.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This RSA is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2007 passed in Regular Appeal No.208/2004 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore D.K., dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 passed in Original Suit No.424/2004 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalore.)1. Appellant has called in question the legality of the Judgment and Decree passed on 30.07.2007 in R.A.No.208/2004 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore D.K., confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2004 passed in O.S.No.424/2004 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mangalore, D.K., dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.2. The material facts in a nutshell are as follows:-O.S.No.424/2004 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff, to pass permanent mandatory injunction directing the defendant/respondent to close the opening made by the defendant on the...

Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Election petition filed U/S. 81 of the representation of people Act, 1951. Praying to declare that election to K R Pura Assembly constituency as Null and Void and order fresh elections in the interest of justice and equity. As the petitioner is entitled for relief U/S. 100 [1][c] of the Representation of people Act, 1951. Since rejection of petitioners nomination paper at the threshold by the 4threspondent is illegal and improper and direct R1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against R4 as per provisions of representation of people Act. 1951 so that it serves as a deterrent and discourage such officers from violating the statutory law and helps in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens in general and petitioner in particular and etc.)1. This election petition under section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 [for short ‘the Act’], is by a person who had aspired to be an independent candidate to contest the election for seeking the...

BommanayakA. Vs. Bommanayaka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: RSA No.1384/2009 is filed under S.100 of CPC against the Judgment & Decree dated 24.02.2009 passed in R.A.No.85/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Sira, dismissing the appeal and modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 6.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.45/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Sira.)1. Appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.45/2004 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC at Sira. Suit was filed against the respondents defendants for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of a site bearing Katha No.68/78 (Old No.105/73) measuring 4 x 20 yards (12 x 60 feet) situated at Seebi, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk. For convenience, the parties would be referred to hereinafter with reference to their rank in Trial Court.2. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is as follows:The suit property, which was an ancestral and joint family property, fell to his share in a family partition and the katha of the same stands in ...

T.P. Basavaraju. Vs. (Cbi) Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 5.2.2009 passed by the XXI Addl. City Civil & S.J. & Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCCH-4) in Spl.C.C.No.188/2001, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offences p/u/s 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as stated therein.)1. This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to 3 years R.I. and Rs.25,000/- fine in respect of the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Actand similar sentence in respect of the other two offences as well.2. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint lodged by the complainant Mueen Farooq (PW-4) is that the complainant being the proprietor of M/s. Ambassador Garments, approached the accused who at the relevant time was the P.R.O. and the complai...