Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 were the petitioners and petitioners 1 and 2 were respondents 1(1) and 1(5) in HRC No. 10568 of 1994, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Respondents 7 to 13 herein were the respondents 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 1(7), 1(8), 1(9) and 1(10) respectively in the said eviction petition. For convenience, respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as 'landlords' and the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 13 will together be referred as 'tenants'.2. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenants (the L.Rs of A. Rajagopal who was running Mercury Press in the petition schedule premises) under Section 21(1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'old HRC Act' or 'old Act'). The petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises, measuring more than 14 sq. nits. The said petition was allowed by order dated 17-11-2001 under proviso (h) to Section 21(1) of the said Act. Feeling aggr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000ACJ1463
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The Division Bench, which was hearing the present first appeal on merits, has referred the following questions of law to the Full Bench for its opinion:Whether in a case of a motor vehicle accident caused due to the composite negligence of the drivers of two or more vehicles, the person who is injured or the legal representatives of a person who is killed in such an accident, is/are entitled to claim the entire compensation from all or any of the drivers, owners and insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident. ORWhether in such a case the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased can recover only that part of compensation from each set of driver, owner or insurer which is proportionate to the quantum of negligence of that driver, which contributed to the accident?2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the new Act') against a judgment and award dated 20.10.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]131TAXMAN717(Kar)
ORDERSri A.S. Mani, an expert in Marketing in the Petroleum sector is knocking the doors of this court in the light of an adverse endorsement issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 2-6-1999.2. The admitted facts are as under :M/s. Oil tanking, a Foreign Company entered into an agreement with the petitioner in the matter of providing consultancy services. There are various clauses seen in the agreement. An application was made to the government in the matter of approval of the agreement. The agreement was approved subject to a condition. The conditional approval reads as under :'The approval for exemption is limited proportionally to the stay and work abroad with the total amount received by applicant.'3. On receipt of the same, the petitioner sought for reconsideration. In the absence of any positive response, the petitioner is knocking the doors of this court for justice.4. Respondents have entered appearance. They oppose the prayers.5. Writ Petition Nos. 23605-606/2001 are filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008ACJ321; 2008(1)KarLJ233
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The appellant is the brother of one Mardanbi. On 28-10-1995, Mardanbi after drawing water from a public hand pump, was on her way home when she was hit by a tractor- trailer. She died as a result of the injuries suffered. Mardanbi was aged about 45 years at the time of her death, she was a widow without any children. She was living in the home of the appellant.The appellant claimed that on account of the death of his sister he suffered loss and hardship and claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), against the driver and the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant, though it was found that Mardanbi had died on account of the injuries suffered in the accident and which was attributable to negligence of the driver of the offending vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR2174
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed bring aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent dated 9-5-2004 as per Annexure-G setting aside the order dated 12-5-2000 passed in Appeal No. 1 of 1999-2000 and order dated 12-11-1999 passed by the third respondent in the revision petition insofar as the decided value of the Arbitrator and fixing the value of the property at Rs. 22,97,600/- with liberty to the revision petitioner to approach the first respondent-Bank and make application accordingly for realisation of its dues and directing the petitioner-Bank to take all appropriate actions and make necessary changes in the calculation of the interest of the loan dues of the petitioner and after realisation of the loan dues remaining amount after due deduction be credited to the petitioner's account.2. It is averred in the petition that the fourth respondent had borrowed loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(4)KarLJ297
ORDERR. Gururajan, J1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:The lands involved in this W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(4)KarLJ345
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The appellant challenges the order passed on an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for brevity) seeking review of an order recording a compromise dated 25-9-1992 in F.D.P. 10/90.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 22/85 which was a suit for partition and separate possession, of a share in the joint family properties. Respondent No. 1 was defendant No. 7 in the said suit. She had engaged counsel and filed written statement. A preliminary decree was passed as on 28-2-1990 in favour of the appellant No. 1 herein. The same was challenged in an appeal before this Court in R.F.A. 239/90 which was allowed by a judgment dated 7-9-1990. Thereafter, the appellant had filed F. D. P. 10/90 before the trial Court.3. The respondent No. 1 had entered appearance through counsel. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that without her knowledge, the alleged power of attorney holder has represented her in a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2006Kant243; ILR2006KAR168; 2006(5)KarLJ219
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act to set aside the order dated 18.2.2006 passed in HRC.NO. 232/2002 by the II Additional Small Causes Judge Bangalore and to allow the eviction petition filed by the respondent.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel representing the respondent.3. The brief facts of the case before entering into the discussion based on the arguments are as under:The respondent-tenant herein filed petition against the petitioner-landlord under Section 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 for eviction from the petition schedule premises that is, ground floor portion of the premises at out house No. 99, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi Bangalore. According to the landlord property bearing No. 99 and 100 of the Surveyors Street consists of an outhouse in the ground floor at No. 99 and first floor at No. 100. They are in dangerous and dilapidated condition and the sch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERRama Jois. J.1. In this Writ Petition, in which the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Hospet Sub-Division, Hospet, by which he declared the sale of certain agricultural lands in favour of the petitioner as invalid in view of Section 4 or the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (The Act' for short), which order has been confirmed in appeal by the Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue). Bellary District, the following important question of law, which also arises in large number of similar cases, arise for consideration :'Whether under the provisions of the Act any power is conferred on the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to make an assessment of the cost of improvements claimed to have been effected by the purchaser on the land, the sale of which 15 declared invalid by Section 4 of the Act, and to secure the payment of the cost of improvements effected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(2)KCCR926; 2009(2)AIRKarR352
ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order allowing the application of the respondents filed Under Section 151 CPC and ordering transfer of suit bearing O.S. No. 35/05 to the Wakf Tribunal.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 35/05 pending on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Belgaum seeking the relief for possession of the suit property from the respondents. The suit property is the ancestral shad in CTS No. 1039 measuring about 700 square yards situate at Belgaum and the boundaries are mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint. The petitioners claim that the suit property belonged to one shahajabdi and she sold it to one Mohammed Sadiq Abdul Rahaman Anagolkar under a registered sale dead dated 20th February 1952 and one Mr. Mohiddin Saheb Khanapuri was occupying the suit property as a tenant. Later the said Mohammed Sadiq Abdul Rahaman Anagolkar sold the suit property to ...
Tag this Judgment!