Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR120; 2008(4)KarLJ573; 2008(1)KCCR116; 2008(2)AIRKarR25; 2008AIHC1615(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. All these civil revision petitions are admitted for examination.All these civil revision petitions under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, 1964, (for short 'the Act') either by the landlords or the tenants, invariably the landlords figuring as plaintiffs in the Small Causes suits which were for ejectment of the person occupying the premises, recovery of which was sought for by the landlords, are revision petitions which arise for examination in the context of the tenants who have suffered eviction orders, contending that such ejectment suits were not maintainable in the light of the law as laid down by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarojamma v. K.M. Venkatesh ILR 2007 KAR 309.2. While disposing of the civil revision petition which had been placed before the division Bench and arising in the context of the very question as to the maintainability of a suit for ejectment under the provisions of the Act, particularly, having re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR1335; 2006(3)KarLJ128
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court in this writ petition is that, if an application is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, whether the petitioners are required to pay Court fee either under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 or under Article 11(n) of Schedule II of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.2. 4th respondent was appointed as arbitrator and he passed an award in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award passed by the 4th respondent, which application has been treated as Arbitration suit 4/2002 by the Civil Court Bangalore. Though it is an application filed under Section 34 of he Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court treated the same as Arbitration suit, pursuant to High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1249
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter has come up for admission after notice.2. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 3-2-1988 made by the Civil Judge, Chickmagalur, in Original Suit No. -- of 1988. The order came to be passed on the office objection that the suit was not properly valued.3. The petitioners - plaintiffs filed suit against the respondents - defendants for rendering accounts in respect of the income from three bits of coffee estates left in the management of the defendants for convenience having obtained the said coffee estates to their share under a registered partition deed. The petitioners have stated that the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was as given in the valuation slip enclosed alongwith the plaint. In the valuation slip, the following is stated:'The suit is for rendition of accounts of the income in the suit land payable to plaintiffs and for a decree on the sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR973; 1992(3)KarLJ745
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the Respondents pointed out that the Appeal will have to be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Mandya, having regard to the value of the subject matter, which according to him, is below Rupees One lakh. Mr. Chandrashekaraiah, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that this was a partition suit and the subject matter of the suit will be the entire joint family property from which the plaintiff-appellant seeks partition.2. There can be no doubt that the value of the subject matter for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction may be different from the value of the subject matter for the purpose of Court fee, having regard to the provisions of Section 50 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. In the case of a partition suit, the Court fee payable is fixed under Section 35(2), when the plaintiff asserts that he is in joint possession of the property. But...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dtd 29.4.2015, in I.A. No. 05 and I.A. No. 06 passed by the senior civil Judge and JNFC at Devanahalli in O.S. No. 623/2011 vide Annek “ G and etc.) 1. Both these petitions have arisen out of a common order dated 29.4.2015 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli on I.A. 5 and 6 in O.S. 623/2011. 2. I.A. 5 filed by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 was one under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC requesting the Court to reject the plaint on the ground of non-payment of sufficient court fee and I.A.6 was one filed under Order 13 Rule 8 of CPC read with Section 33 of Karnataka Stamp Act requesting the Court to impound the registered sale deed dated 29.7.2005 relied upon by the plaintiff and refer the same to the Deputy Commissioner to collect requisite stamp duty and penalty. 3. Both these applications have been allowed-in-part and the operative portion reads as follows: ORDER ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF JULY2015BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA WRIT PETITION NO.25190/2015 (GM-CPC) AND WRIT PETITION NO.25580/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI M.S. MAHADEVAIAH S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT43YEARS, R/AT No.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 079 (BY SRI.H.R. ANANTHA KRISHANA MURTHY ADV.) PETITIONER AND:1. SMT.AKKAMMA W/O LATE MUNEGOWDA MAJOR R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.2. SHAJI BABY JOHN S/O BABY JOHN AGED ABOUT55YEARS, R/AT No.589, C-8, 2 KENDRIYA VIHAR, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 560 064.3. MFAR INFRANSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT P. LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERD OFFICE AT NO.3, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. Y MOIDEEN RIZWAN, 4. OZONE URBANA INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.18, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE560042. REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 15th day of July, 2014 Before THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH Civil Revision Petition 1415 / 2004 Sri L Premkishore, 51 yrs S/o late B M Lakshmana Murthy R/a # 17, 15th Cross, BEML Layout Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore Sri L Shailesh, 45 yrs S/o late B M Lakshmana Murthy R/a # 90, 2nd Main Road, 7th Block Jayanagar, Bangalore Smt K Shashirekha, 40 yrs W/o L Prem Kishore R/a # 17, 15th Main, BEML Layout Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore Between 1 2 3 4 5 Aditya, 17 yrs, S/o Prem Kishore By his father L Prem Kishore R/a with father Smt D Shakunthala, 42 yrs W/o L Shailesh, R/a # 90 2nd Main Road, 7th Block Jayanagar 2 S Shambhavi, 14 yrs D/o L Shailesh Reptd. by her father and Residing with him Smt B Lalitha, 76 yrs W/o late B M Lakshmanamurthy R/a # 90, 2nd Main Road 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore Smt Sarala, 50 yrs D/o late B M Lakshmanamurthy R/a # 12/A, R V Layout K P West, Bangalore 6 7 8 (By Sri M Aswathanarayana Reddy,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Revision Petition is filed under S. 115 of the CPC praying to set aside the orders passed on IA 3 and IA 5 to 7 on 4.12.2002 in OS 226171996 by the 31st Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.) 1. This is a defendants appeal (i.e., defendants 8, 9 and 11-16) challenging the order of rejecting their applications to recali the order dated 9.11.1999 or review the said order allowing the plain tiff/lSl respondent herein to pay the deficit court fee on the prayer for recovery of money and in the alternative for declaration and possession. It transpires that property measuring 5.24 acres in Sy.No.6/1 and 6/2 of Dasarahally, Uttarahally Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was the subject matter under the Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA for short) which was sold m favour of the plaintiff. It appears as there was some illegality committed in granting permission contrary to the provisions of the ULCA, matter reached the Supreme Court where such a transaction was held void on the ground that such ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR887
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the order of the learned single Judge who has directed the trial Court to try and decide issue No. 3 relating to the court fee as a preliminary issue.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 213/2000 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Raichur, for the relief of partition and separate possession of their l/6th share in the suit schedule property. They also sought for a decree for refund of 1/6th share in the compensation received by the defendant. The defendant filed his written statement contesting the claim. He contended that the compensation received by him in respect of the land acquired by the State Government was his exclusive property. He specifically pleaded that the valuation of the suit and payment of fixed Court fee under Section 35(2) is wrong, and insufficient. As per the claim, each plaintiff has to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1983KAR223; 1984(2)KarLJ185
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2221 of 1982 is filed by defendant-2 and is directed against the order dated 8-7-1982 of the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No- 8041 of 1980 brought by Respondents 1 to 3 as Plaintiffs in that suit. Civil Revision Petition No. 2995 of 1982 is filed by the State of Karnataka against the very same order of the Learned Judge. But, in that case the State has filed a memo on 30-3-1983 praying for permission to withdraw the same, which has given rise to Writ Petition No. 7525 of 1983 by one Sri G.P. Shivaprakash, an Advocate of this Court. In the course of my order hereafter, I will refer to those who are parties in O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 by their array in that suit, the State of Karnataka, Petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2995 of 1982 which is Respondent-I in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 1983 as the State and Sri G. P. Shivaprakash, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 198) as the Petitioner.2. In order to appreciate the severa...
Tag this Judgment!