Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ364
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions are filed by the claimants under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, assailing the constitutional validity of Section 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (shortly called 'the Act') to declare that Section 48 of the Act as void ab initio or as violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and at all events repugnant and contrary to the declaration of law laid down by the Supreme Court in P.M. Ashwatha narayana Setty and Others v State of Karnataka and Others.2. The facts of the case are that all the petitioners in these petitions are claimants under the Land Acquisition Act. Their lands were acquired under the Act (Act No. 1 of 1894). The petitioners sought a reference to the Civil Court as the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not adequate. The reference Court passed awards, after considering the material evidence on record and again a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1982Kant343; ILR1982KAR344; 1982(1)KarLJ466
N. Venkatachala, J.1. By consent of learned. counsel, this appeal was treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them.2. This appeal is from the order dated 31-8-1981 of Chandrakantaraj Mrs, J. in writ petition of Ramesh Pande and others of 1981 regarding the court-fee payable on that petition. The petitioners therein have presented this appeal and for the sake of convenience, they will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners.3. Petitioners, thirteen in number, who are individually engaged in vending liquor in different towns of Karnataka, presented a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugning the constitutional validity of new Section 6-11 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, substituted by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Impugned taxing provision'). On that petition, a court fee of, Rs. 100 had-been paid. The office of this Court raised an objection to the effect that proper, court-fees payable on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1975Kant203; 1975(2)KarLJ35
ORDER1. This revision petition raises a question of court-fee.2. A few facts may be necessary for the disposal of the same. The plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this petition arises, for specific performance of an agreement dated 23-3-1948. by which defendant 1 agreed to convey four items of properties to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. By an arrangement between them defendant 1 conveyed Items 1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and Hem 4 in favour of his mother and failed to convey the other item, namely, item No. 2. The plaintiff brought the suit for specific performance of the agreement between him and first defendant and sought the relief of conveyance of the second item. He paid court-fee on Rs. 4,060/-on the basis that represented the amount due by him to defendant 1 for conveyance of item No. 2. Defendant 2 in his written statement raised an objection that the suit had to be valued on the basis of the agreement and court-fee had to be paid as provided und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR3527; 2000(6)KarLJ381
ORDER ON COURT FEE1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 10-2-2000, passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in LAC No. 7 of 1998. The claimants in the said proceedings were owners of certain lands acquired under preliminary and final notifications issue under Section 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'KIAD Act'). The respondent in the said Reference Proceedings [LAC 7 of 1998] was 'State, by Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB'.2. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 70,000.00 per acre. The Reference Court had fixed the market value of the land as Rs. 3.40 lakhs per acre. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the 'Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board'.3. The appellant has not paid any Court fee on the appeal. The appellant contends that no Court fee is payable on two grounds. The first i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR2304
ORDERRaveendran, J. 1. First respondent filed O.S. No. 57/1992 on the file of the Civil Judge. Puttur on 14.9.1992 against respondents 2 to 11 (defendants 1 to 5 and 7 to 11) and Appellants (defendants 6 and 12) seeking a decree: (i) directing partition and separate possession of his 1/42nd Share in the suit 'B' schedule properties; (ii) directing the defendants or such of them as are liable to render account in respect of the income received from them till date of suit and to pay future mesne profits to him at a rate to be determined by the Court till delivery of possession of the property. (iii) for payment of Rs. 200/- as the cost of the lawyers notice; The plaintiff filed a valuation slip showing the actual market value of the B Schedule properties as Rs. 81,50,000/- and the market value of his 1/42nd share as Rs. 1,94,047.61. He stated that the Court Fee payable in regard to the first relief (Partition) is Rs. 200/- under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1977Kant181; ILR1977KAR1178; 1977(2)KarLJ467
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil judge, Bellary made in Land Acquisition Case No. 86 of 1972 on a reference made under S. 31(2) of the said Act.2. The appellant has paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 10 under Art. 3 (iii) (1) (a) of Schedule JI of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (shortly called 'the Court-Fees Act'). The office has refused to register the appeal on the ground that the court-fee paid was insufficient and the appellant ought to have paid court-fee under Section 49 read with Art I of Sch. I of the Court-Fees Act. The appellant on the other hand, contended that the matter involved in the appeal being limited only to the apportionment of the compensation awarded, S. 48 has no application.3. The decision on these contentions turns on the scope of Ss. 48 and 49 of the Court-Fees Act and the scheme provided there under. It will be, therefore, convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2000Kant356; ILR2000KAR3201; 2001(4)KarLJ264
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed challenging the orders passed on Issue No. 7, dated 9-4-1999 in O.S. No. 418 of 1994.2. The 1st petitioner, a Public Trust, was constituted in the year 1924. Petitioners 2 to 11 are Honorary Trustees duly appointed by the learned District Judge, Mysore, in terms of the scheme framed in O.S. No. 12 of 1979. The suit schedule property was the trust property. The same was managed by one Sri M.S. Madappa (original trustee). Subsequent to his death, his son the 1st defendant has sold by the trust or property to one Mallikarjunappa. The respondents 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Mallikarjunappa. They, in turn, have mortgaged the same to respondent 6-a tenant.3. Petitioners filed on O.S. No. 418 of 1994 seeking for various reliefs, including the relief of declaration, declaring that the sale deed dated 31-10-1971 executed by defendant 1 in favour of late Mallikarjunappa, husband of defendant 2 and father of defendants 3 to 5, as null and void and the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ558
ORDER1. This revision arises from the judgment and order dated 7-9-1996 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Bantwal, D.K. (Mr. B.M. Baju), whereby the Trial Court rejected the plaintiff-revision petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint by addition of the relief for declaration that the bill sent by the defendant is illegal and unjust.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are:That the plaintiff-revision petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Karnataka Electricity Board from disconnecting the electricity supply to the house of the petitioner through its Meter No. T. 257 of Thumbe Village in Bantwal Taluk. According to the plaintiff the defendant demanded and served a bill on 8-11-1989 as per the plaint allegation that it was an audit short claim. The plaintiff's case is that all of a sudden, he has received a bill on 8th November, 1989 calling upon the plaintiff to pay it by 18-11-1989 in a sum of Rs. 3,841-80, out of which a sum of Rs. 3,836-4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(1)KarLJ166; 2008(1)KCCR221; 2008(1)AIRKarR606; AIR2008NOC634; 2008(2)ICC854; 2008AIHC1445(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 4-1-2006 passed in P Misc No 726 of 1993, on the file of XV Additional City Civil 6s Sessions Judge, Bangalore City,2. Under the impugned order, the leaned trial judge had permitted the plaintiffs-respondents to prosecute the suit filed by them as indigent persons. It is aggrieved by tills order, the defendants in the suit have filed tills civil revision petition.3. Civil revision petition having been admitted and the respondents, who are beneficiaries of the impugned order, have entered appearance through counsel Sri M.C. Ravikumar.4. I have heard Sri Jayavittalrao Kolar learned senior counsel for petitioners, Sri M.C. Ravikumar, learned Counsel for the respondents and also Sri Venkataramana, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the state.5. Submission of Sri Kolar senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the trial judge has commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant63; ILR1992KAR1113; 1992(4)KarLJ642
ORDERSwami, J. 1. This appeal is preferred under S. 96 read with O.21, R.43A of the Civil P.C. against the order dated 20th November 1987 passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore on I.A.VII filed in O.S. No. 146/83. The aforesaid suit was filed by the first respondent against respondents 2 to 6. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are not parties to the suit. The appellant No. 3, though he was a party to the suit and a decree was passed against him, with the permission of the Court has been transposed as respondent No. 6. Thus this appeal is by appellants 1 and 2 who were not parties to the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit against respondents 2 to 6 herein who were defendants 1 to 5 in the suit for a sum of Rs. 6,01,287-35 Ps being the amount due to the plaintiff-bank. During the pendency of the suit the fishing boat in question was ordered to be seized as it was hypothecated to the plaintiff-bank and was entrusted to appellants 1 and 2 and the 6th respondentherein. D...
Tag this Judgment!