Karnataka Court July 2015 Judgments
Anitha Kishori D’ Silva Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
(Prayer: These Writ appeals are filed U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the Order passed in the writ petition Nos.40140-141/2012.) 1. The land owners are successfully preventing the acquisition of the property in dispute for the last few years. 2. A notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act for short), was issued on January 07, 2006 proposing to acquire the land. 3. On January, 02, 2007, a notification was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act. By issuing the said notification under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the said Act, the property was denotified. 4. The notification, denotifying the property under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the said Act, was under challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.3962 of 2007. This Court, by judgment and order dated November 23, 2007, allowed the writ petition. 5. These land owners presented a memorandum of appeal on February 02, 2008, challenging ...
Tag this Judgment!Pilla Akkayyamma and Others Vs. Channappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
(Prayer: This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree R.A. No. 110/2008 dated 11.1.2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Devanahalli., etc.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 110/2008 dated 11.1.2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Devanahalli. 2. The appellants are the legal representatives of the plaintiff-Smt. Subbamma in O.S. No. 402/1996 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Devanahalli. Subbamma filed the aforesaid suit for cancellation of the gift deed dated 12.3.1979 executed by Byamma, second wife of Venkatarayappa in favour of the second defendant and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Alternatively, they sought for possession of the suit schedule properties in case the Court comes to a conclusion that the defendants are in possession of the properties. 3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Vasudeva Vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Developmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the R-1 vide Ann-C and etc.,) 1. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 11.6.2015 passed by the Additional Secretary to Department of Urban Development, whereby the respondent No.4, Mr,H.T.Krishnamurthy was posted on the post of Chief Officer, Alur Grama Panchayat, the post which was held by the petitioner from 31.7.2013 till passing of the transfer order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Mr. C. Vasudeva was appointed on 17.3.1976 on the post of water supply Helper in the Department of Urban Development. He was posted in town Municipal Council, Holenarasipura. He worked in the said post for ten years. Subsequently, he was transferred to Town Municipal Council, Sakaleshpur. He was promoted to the post of Typists and transferred to Hassan City Municipal Council. Thereafter, he was promoted as First ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy Vs. A.M. Kumar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
(THESE MFAs FILED U/O 43, RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:4.4.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.463/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O 39, RULE1 and 2 OF CPC.) 1. Appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.463/2015. The said suit is filed by him seeking the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of 'B' schedule property. He has also sought for declaration that the Sale Deeds dated 29.07.1992, 04.08.1992, 27.08.1994, 29.08.1994, 08.09.1994, 28.02.1995, 22.04.1995, 17.04.1995, 11.12.1995, 09.12.1995 and five other Sale Deeds executed during the year 2010 were not binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also sought for permanent 5injunction to restrain defendant No.3/respondent No.3 herein from putting up illegal construction over B schedule property. 2. Two applications were filed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 by the plaintiff. I.A.No.1 was filed to restrain defendant No.3 from putting up any illegal construction o...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanthi D. Shetty and Another Vs. The Managing Director, KSRTC and An ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
(Prayer: This MFA filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated:21.01.2011 passed in MVC No. 1259/2009 on the file of the presiding officer, Fast Track Court, Udupi, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. Claimant in MVC NO. 1259/2009 on the file of MACT, Udupi, has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of Darshan Guru involving motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA.03 EB 6588 and KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA.01-F-8262. ƒ 2. The accident which has taken place on 5.7.2009 at about 10.30 p.m. is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, in the said accident Darshan Guru succumbed to the injuries suffered therein. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by his mother and younger sister seeking compensation for his death. Normal practice in a case of death of a bachelor is to take the actual income or in the absence, notional income for consideration of compensat...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Paraag Ltd. (HPL) Vs. State Bank of India (Industrial Finance) r ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the Order of Rejection of One Time Settlement Scheme issued by the Respondent vide letter dated 15.10.2013 vide Ann-P and direct the Respondent to provide One Time Settlement Scheme, SBI-OTS-MSME-2012 to the petitioner holding the same as Medium Enterprise.) 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the letter dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure “ P) issued by the respondent whereby the one time settlement sought by the petitioner under the scheme has been rejected. The petitioner is therefore seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of one time settlement under the SBI-OTS-MSME-2012 scheme. 2. The petitioner with the object of constructing a hotel at Mahadevapura availed the loan of Rs. 62,00,00,000/- from the respondent which was sanctioned on 25.01.2011. Since there was default in repayment of the said amount, the respondent classified ...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 20.09.2013 passed in MVC No. 2528/2011 on the file of the 12th Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,35,685/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 20.09.2013 passed in MVC No. 2528/2011 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation.) 1. Both these appeals arise from the judgment, dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in M.V.C.No. 2528/2011. 2. M.V.C.No. 10685/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that it cannot be made liable to pay the compensation, as the accident is caused by somebody, who had stolen the motor cycle. M.F.A. No. 878/2014 is filed by the claimant seeking the enhance...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Mahadevaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
1. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. By the Advocate for the appellant praying to set aside the order dated 29-9-2009 passed by the XII ACMM and XX ACMM, Bangalore in c.c. No. 29381 of 2006 acquitting the respondent-accused for the punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 188] and convict the respondent-accused. 2. The case of the complainant in the Trial Court is as under: The complainant in which the Shriram Investment Limited was amalgamated is a company engaged in the business of financing on vehicles under hire purchase scheme. Shriram Investment Limited, which was the Limited Company came to be amalgamated with the Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, ride order dated 25-11-2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Madras. The complainant states that the accused has entered into hire purchase agreement (SIL/KHR/75451) with the complainant-company i.e., Shriram Investment Limited, on 25-1-2005 in connec...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Irudayaraju Alias Manthri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
1. The judgment and order dated 5-8-2010, passed by the Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in SC No. 319 of 2009 is called in question in this appeal by the State. 2. The accused-respondent herein was charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC by the Trial Court. The State is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, the appeal. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Vincent is the husband of the complainant-Smt. Joy; accused is the younger brother of Vincent; Smt. Joy had an younger sister by name Shanti; when Shanti was aged about 17 years, the accused-Mantri (respondent herein) married her without the consent of the complainant and the deceased and therefore they had grouse against the accused and they used to quarre...
Tag this Judgment!Madhaiah and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
1. Even according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the title of the petitioners to the immovable property, subject-matter of acquisition by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ( ˜KIADBfor short) on the basis of consent extended by the petitioners since disputed and the matter is pending at large in O.S.No. 174 of 2013 and if that is so, then petitioners cannot claim that a reference must be made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioners would be well-advised to ensure an appropriate order or judgment and decree in their favour over their title to property since it is litigious and thereafter claim compensation together with interest upto the date of order. 2. Apparently under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ( ˜KIAD Actfor short), sub-section (2) of Section 29 provides for acquisition by agreement of parties, while at the same time the Act provides for drawing a general award. It is settled ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »