Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction or order in the nature of certiorari by quashing Annexure-E - letter bearing No.KIADB/BGM/515/2012-13 dated 07.06.2012 issued by respondent No.3.) 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent No.4. 2. Annexure-E - Communication dated 07.06.2012 addressed to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent - Development Officer, KIADB, Belgaum, informing her that Demand Draft for a sum of ?25,000/- received by the respondent - KIADB on 16.03.2012 could not be accepted towards the cost of allotment of industrial plot bearing No.59, of Mahalabahagyat Industrial Area, Bijapur and therefore, the allotment made to her stood cancelled for non-payment of balance amount within the stipulated time, has been called in question in this writ petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was allotted an industrial plot on 15.09.2011. She had paid initial deposit of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition Is Filed Under Section 439 Of Cr.P.C. Praying To Enlarge The Petitioner On Bail In Crime No. 136/2013 Of Peenya Police Station, Bangalore City And S.C. No.979/2013 Pending On The File Of Presiding Officer, Ftc-Vii, Bangalore For The Offences Punishable Under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307 Read With Section 149 Of Ipc.) 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner / accused No.8 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. registered by the respondent - Police Station in Crime No.136/2013. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner / accused No.8 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the earlier bail application is rejected, but as the trial in the case is not commenced and the case is at the stage of framing c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Gulbarga dated 27.11.2010 in Execution Petition No.60/2002 vide Annexure-K consequently accept the Memo of Calculation filed by the petitioners dated 10.11.2010 vide Annexure-F and etc.) 1. Order passed by the Executing Court on 27.11.2010 on the Memo of Calculation filed by the decree holders - petitioners herein is called in question in this writ petition. 2. The land of the petitioners having been acquired, an award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'the SLAO'). On reference, the Civil Court has enhanced the compensation as per the judgment and award passed in LAC No.591/1994, as modified in M.F.A.No.1402/1997 and the Cross Objection filed by the claimants. Petitioners filed Execution Petition in EP.No.60/2002. They calculated the WP.83674/2011 market value and the compensatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Gulbarga
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or order or direction writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-J.) 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner for Gulbarga City Corporation produced at Annexure-J. 2. As per impugned order, entries in the Municipal Khata in respect of property bearing Sy.No. 1-1294/ 1 and to the surrounding property has been ordered to be entered in the name of the 2nd respondent-Mohanchandra. Petitioner is the son of the 2nd respondent. 3. It is the case of petitioner that property belongs to him as the same has been bequeathed in his favour by a registered Will executed by his grandfather and therefore, it was rightly entered in his name in the Municipal records, but without notice to the petitioner and without providing him any opportunity of being heard,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Dtd.21.03.2014 On Ia-1 In Mc No.21 Of 2011 Passed By The Court Of The Iii Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) At Bellary As Per Annexure-E, And Reject Ia-1.) 1. Miscellaneous Case No.3/2011 was filed on 30.04.2011, in the Vacation Court at Bellary, to set aside the decree passed on 25.07.2008 in O.S. No.390/2008. Along with the said petition, LA. No.1 was filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay in presenting the petition. The petitioner herein filed statement of objections and opposed I.A. No.2, by filing a counter. The Court below having allowed I.A. No.1 and condoned the delay, as per order dated 21.03.2014, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed. 2. Beard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition record. 3. The Trial Court has committed a material error and irregularity in deciding I.A. No.1, without recording the evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(Prayer: This R.F.A. is filed u/s. 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.06.2005 passed in O.S.No. 113/98 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (SR.DN.), Belgaum, partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession and etc.) 1. Plaintiff of O.S.No. 113/98 which was pending on the file of the court of II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Belgaum, is before this Court by filing an appeal u/S. 96 of CPC. Suit filed by him for the relief of partition and separate possession of an immovable urban property bearing CTS No. 340 measuring in all 138.79 sqmts in the city of Belgaum, has been decreed in part granting 4/9th share only to the plaintiff and 2/9th share + 1/3 share to defendant no.1-Tabassum. It is this judgment and decree which is called in question on various grounds as raised in the appeal memorandum amongst other grounds. 2. Appellant is the plaintiff is the said suit. First respondent is the first defendant and remaining respondents herein are the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 Of Constitution Of India Praying To Quash Notification Dated 24.02.2012 Issued By The R-2 As Being Ultra Vires The Provisions Of The Electricity Act 2003 Vide Ann-B.) (Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 Of Constitution Of India Praying To Quash Notification Dated 24.02.2012 Issued By The 2nd Respondent As Being Ultra Vires The Provisions Of The Electricity Act 2003 Vide Annexure-E.) 1. Since common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned counsel, petitions are clubbed together, heard finally and disposed of by this order. 2. The common grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity directed the filing of an application to condone the delay in filing the review petition, in view of Rule 13 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, Fee and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007, for short 'Rules' enablin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Respondent Authority Not To Demolish The Existing Structure On The Petitioner Property For The Purpose Of Formation Or Widening Of Road SH-57 Without Following The Acquisition Proceedings.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus directing the respondents-authority not to demolish the existing structure on the petitioner's property for the purpose of formation or widening of Road SH-57 without following the acquisition proceedings. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property bearing assessment No. 120 of Hullahalli Village, Nanjangud Taluk. The property is claimed to be the ancestral property of the petitioner which was purchased by the grandfather under a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1919. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in enjoyment of the propert3' which was purchased by his grandfat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 Of Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Dated 09.01.2014 Passed By The Court Of The First Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court At Bengaluru In M.C.N0.262/2013 On I.A.No.V Vide Ann-A, As Arbitrary, Illegal And Unjust And To Accordingly Dismiss I.A.No.V Filed By The Respondent In The Court Below In M.C.N0.262/2013 Under Section 24 Of The Hindu Marriage Act.) 1. The jurisdiction to pass an order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short 'Act'] arises as soon as any proceeding is instituted under the Act and the condition for the exercise of jurisdiction under the said section is that the applicant should not have any independent income sufficient for her to support necessary expenses of the proceeding. If that condition is satisfied, the court has jurisdiction and power to pass an order to direct the opposite party to pay expenses of the proceeding and direct monthly maintenance during the proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition Filed U/S.439 Cr.P.C Praying To Enlarge The Petitioner On Bail In S.C.No.5032/13 On The File Of The Iii Addl. Dist. And S.J., Bangalore Rural Dist., At Anekal, For The Offences P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 34 of IPC.) 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking their release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC registered in the respondent-police station Crime No.46/2013. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. Counsel also made the submission that accused Nos.4 to 6 have been granted bail by the order of this Court. Hence, ...
Tag this Judgment!