Court : Karnataka Dharwad
1. this intra court appeal is preferred by the petitioners in w.p.no.16859/2011 aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2012 of the learned single judge dismissing the petition. 2. facts not in dispute are: one naganagouda patil, said to be the propositus, had eight children, since deceased represented by legal heirs, petitioners and respondents were parties in o.s.no.182/1966 on the file of the munsiff, haveri, for declaration, partition and separate possession of several immovable properties including lands in r.s.no.195 and 129/a measuring 20 acres and 31 guntas and 1 acre and 29 guntas, respectively, of balambid village in hangal taluk, admittedly, claimed to be in joint possession and cultivation of the siblings, as tenants. in the absence of a dispute lover tenancy claims, an issue over claim of tenancy was not framed and the suit ended in a 13 compromise decree dated 29.09.1966, annexure-r-3 to the statement of objections of respondents, one of the terms of which reads thus: kannadam 3. by this term, the parties agreed that the lands in question since tenanted from the time of their ancestors, and if the property is shown as fallen to the share of one of the parties no disputes would arise, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 to cultivate the lands jointly and as has 14 been done till the present to jointly pay to the landlord the rent (lavani) 4. the deputy commissioner having initiated action to recover the levy over paddy grown on the said lands, under the food control .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(prayer: this writ appeal is filed u/s.4 of the high court act, 1961, praying to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated:29/08/2012 passed in w.p.no.63881/2012 and wp no.63913-15/2012 (gm-res) by the learned single judge of this hon'ble court and allow the writ appeal by allowing the writ petition no.63881/2012 and 63913-15/2012 as prayed for in writ petition.) 1. heard sri. s.n.ashwathnarayana, learned counsel for the appellant and government advocate for r-2. 2. the appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single judge in wp nos.63881/2012 and 63913-15/2012 dated 29/8/2012, wherein, the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. the facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:- the appellant's land was notified for the benefit of the national highway authority under sub section (1) of section 3 of the national highways act, for widening the national highway no.13 at amaravathi village of hospet taluk. preliminary notification was issued on 7/3/2011 and final notification was issued on 8/8/2011 and thereafter, the competent authority, respondent no.3, determined the compensation payable to the acquired land at the rate of rs.2,583.6/- per sq.mtrs., by considering the lands as non agricultural land and awarded a total compensation of rs.78,48,976/-. 4. thereafter, the national highway authority of india- first respondent herein, moved an application under section 3g(5) of the national highway act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
dr. bhakthavatsala, j. 1. this is an appeal filed under section 260a of the income tax act, 1961, by the revenue, questioning the legality of the order dated 1.10.2004 made in ita no.77/pnj/2002 on the file of income tax appellate tribunal (itat), panaji bench at panaji, confirming the order of the commissioner of income tax (appeals), at belgaum. 2. brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under: during the course of income tax department search in the case of b.b. swamy on 10.12.1991, the income tax department seized certain amount and as per the provisions of the income tax act, 1961 (in short the act), the same was adjusted as against the income tax demand raised against him. further, simultaneous search was conducted at bangalore in the residence and factory of smt.b.sumangala devi (in short the assessee) who is close associate of b.b. swamy and seized gold, cash, silverware, other valuables and incriminating documents. during the assessment year 1992-93, the assessing officer held that the assessee had sold plots bearing nos.9, 10 and 11, (acquired on 25.02.1983, 31.03.1983 and 08.03.1983 respectively, all situated at belgaum) and made capital gains on the sale of those plots. she challenged the assessment order before the commissioner of income tax (appeals) contending that the plots sold by her were belonged to b.b.swamy and the sale consideration was transferred to him and she has not made any capital gains on account of sale of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... the instant case, it is also demonstrated before tribunal that neither the bus was apprehended at the place of accident nor the driver and conductor were taken to the custody of police. ..... going through the impugned judgment with reference to grounds of appeal, it is seen that alleged accident is said to have taken place on 7.4.2003 at about 9.30am. ..... assuming for a moment, accident has taken place involving aforesaid bus, as observed by this court earlier the offending bus would not have completed any of its trips subsequent to 9.30 ..... therefore, the theory of accident being caused by offending bmtc bus on 7.4.2003 at ..... , in the morning hours, if accident had really taken place, definitely the bus would not have completed any of its remaining trips for the day except going to police station. ..... assuming for a moment, accident is said to have taken place at ..... 7.4.2003 or at any point of time on that day, inasmuch as, said vehicle not being apprehended by police or by public either at the place of accident or in any other place in and around that area on that day clearly discloses there is no probability of involvement of said vehicle in the accident. ..... if accident itself appears to be highly doubtful, then question of holding that claimant suffered injuries in the accident caused by said bus and appellant corporation is liable to pay compensation, is ..... leading to this appeal are as under: the claimant before tribunal is said to have met with an accident on 7.4.2003 at about 9.30 a.m., on n.r. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... section 12(1) of the said act makes it obligatory for the principal employer to pay compensation to the accident victim or his dependent - claimants, once it is shown that the work executed by the contractor is ordinarily a part of the business or trade of the principal employer, who would have engaged his own employees to do such work, but .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(prayer: this rsa is filed under section 100 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001 passed in r.a no.55/95 on the file of the 1st addl. district judge, dharwad, sitting at hubli, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.7.95 passed in o.s no.112/90 on the file of the addl. civil judge, hubli.) 1. this is a defendants second appeal against the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that the schedule properties are all shetsanadi lands pertaining to walikarki service which was granted in favour of peersab, the father of defendants which enure to their benefit and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the property which was re-granted in favour of peersab. 2. for the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the plaint. 3. the subject matter of the suit are agricultural lands situated in unkal village of hubli taluk, originally an inam village myadkoppa. they are clearly set out in para 2 of the plaint. these lands were held as shetsanadi lands and after abolition and amalgamation of myadkoppa village into unkal village they are re- numbered and shown in rr extract. the survey number particulars are also set out in para 2 of the plaint. the kabjedar mayannawar bheemappa doddappa died leaving behind him two sons who are in possession and have been arrayed as defendants no. 6 and 7 in the suit. plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings under the karnataka land reforms and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(prayer: this rsa is filed under section 100 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2009 passed in r.a no.229/2002 on the file of the i addl. civil judge (sr.dn.), hubli allowing the appeal, filed against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2002 passed in o.s no.272/1995 on the file of the prl. civil judge (jr.dn.) hubli, dismissing the suit filed for declaration and possessions and mense profit.) 1. this is the defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court by which it set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. 2. for the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. the plaintiff sri siddeshwar is the adopted son of kadayya. the subject matter of the suit is property bearing c.t.s. no. 2890, c.w. ward no. 2, hubli, dharwad district, consisting of a house a open space which is surrounded by the properties which are more particularly described in item no. 1 of the plaint and for short hereinafter referred to as the suit property. 4. the case of the plaintiff is the suit property originally belonged to his adopted father kadayya channabasaiah kadadevaramath. it was under his management. after his death the name of his wife smt. gurubasavva was entered in the city survey records. after the death of smt. gurubasavva the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit property. the defendants are his near .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(writ petition nos.64368-64375/2012 are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, quashing fir 179/2012 annexure-j filed by respondent no.4 against the petitioners in civil lines, police station, raipur, chhattisgarh and also return all the books, documents and other materials belonging to the petitioners seized mentioned in annexure-r.) 1. these petitions are heard and decided together since certain common issues arise. 2. in first of these petitions, petitioner no.1, m/s. coastal mines and minerals (hereinafter referred to as cmm, for brevity) is a registered partnership firm. petitioner no.2, prasanna v ghotage (hereinafter referred to as ghotage, for brevity), is one of the partners of cmm. petitioner no.3 has no connection with cmm. he is the general manager of a proprietory concern, of which, ghotage is the proprietor petitioner no.4 claims that he is not at all associated either with petitioner no.1 or 2. petitioner no.5 is said to be the export manager of a proprietory concern of ghotage. petitioner no.6 is said to be the chief executive officer of m/s. hira steels limited (hereinafter referred to as hsl, for brevity) of raipur, chhattisgarh. petitioner no.7 also claims no association with petitioner no.1. petitioner no.8 also claims to have no connection with petitioner no.1. but, all the petitioners have joined in filing this petition in the light of a first information report in fir 179/2012 filed by hsl at raipur, chhattisgarh state, in which .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
dr. k. bhakthavatsala, j. 1. in view of the order dated 31.5.2012 made in w pno.67926/2011 by learned single judge, honble chief justice by his special order dated 21.6.2012, has referred the following question to answer by this larger bench: whether orders made under section 136(2) of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (in short, the land revenue act) by the assistant commissioner in appeals preferred against the orders made under sub-section (4) or entry certified under sub-section (6) of section 129 of the land revenue act, are subject to revision by deputy commissioner under sub-section(3) of section 136 of the land revenue act? 2. brief facts leading to the reference may be stated as under: petitioner filed the above writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india against the respondents, for quashing the order in no.rts/ap/109/09-10 dated 23.5.2011 at annexure-c on the file of respondent no.3/assistant commissioner, chikodi, and order passed in no.rb/rta/113/2011-12 dated 12.10.2011 at annexure-e on the file of respondent no.4/deputy commissioner, belgaum. it is the case of the petitioner that the land measuring 6 acres 22 guntas in sy. no.191/3a situated at manjare village, chikodi taluk, belgaum district, was granted in favour of his father-venkaji kulkarni by the tahsildar of chikodi, under section 4(1) of bombay paragena and kulkarni watans (abolition) act, 1950. again, as per re-grant order no.rb/wrg/sr.461 dated 2.3.1958, the land in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(prayer: this rfa is filed under section 96 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 4.4.2000 passed in o.s no.35/88 by the 1st addl. civil judge, sr.dn. belgaum, decreeing the suit for declaration and possession and dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.) 1. this is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4th april 2000 passed in o.s.no.35/1988 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff granting relief of declaration as well as possession in respect of 18 guntas of the suit schedule land from defendant nos.25 to 35 and declining to grant decree of permanent injunction. 2. for the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. the pedigree of the family is clearly set out in schedule 'a' annexed to the plaint which is not in dispute. 4. the land bearing r.s.no.1389 originally measured 23 acres 36 guntas. it was owned by one thakkoji. thakkoji had five sons by name omanna, narayan, parashram, neelu and meenaji. none were alive at the time of filing of the suit. the case of the plaintiffs is, during the lifetime of thakkoji, he executed a registered will with respect to entire r.s.no.1389 situated in kangrali village of belgaum taluk. under the said will, r.s.no.1389 was bequeated in favour of meenaji, his last son. this will was executed when his sons were alive. meenaji son of tukkoji died in about 1926. at the time when the will was executed on 10.11.1890, r.s.no.1389 was not sub-divided. on 27.01. .....
Tag this Judgment!