Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 3 of about 95 results (0.007 seconds)

Apr 15 2005 (HC)

The Registrar General Vs. Sri Gundu Rao and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-15-2005

Reported in : 2005CriLJ3463; ILR2005KAR1990; 2005(4)KarLJ593

orderashok b. hinchigeri, j.1. this contempt proceedings are initiated by this court on its own motion. the petition is presented under article 215 of the constitution of india read with section 15(1) of the contempt of courts act, 1971. the subject matter of the complaint is that the accused have fabricated an interim order alleged to have been issued by this court in w.a.no. 6282/2002 and produced the same in the proceedings before the land tribunal, belthangadi.2. the brief facts of the case are that the accused no. 1 had a small piece of agricultural land for which a person claiming himself to be a tenant sought for occupancy rights. the accused filed w.p.no. 40893/2002 (lr) challenging the order dated 15-7-97 passed by the land tribunal, belthangadi. this writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge on 13-11-2002. that order was challenged in w.a.no. 6282/2002. the appeal papers were returned on 22-1-2003 to the advocate for the appellant (the accused no. 1 herein) for complying with the office objections. the papers were re-filed on 17-2-2003.3. meanwhile, the accused no. 1 produced a fabricated interim order dated 5-12-2002 purported to have been passed by the division bench of this court in w.a.no. 6282/2002. this production of the order was on 4-1-2003 in the office of the tahsildar-cum-secretary of the land tribunal, belthangadi. as the tahsildar did not find the seal of this court on the fabricated interim order and some of the writings were by hand, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2005 (HC)

Tippanna Vs. Jalal Sab and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Kant1; ILR2005KAR6011; 2005(6)KarLJ100

v.g. sabhahit, j.1. this appeal by the second plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree; passed by the court of civil judge (senior division), yadgir, in r.a. no. 69 of 1997, dated 7-3-2003 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the court of civil judge (junior division), shahapur in o.s. no. 1.26 of 1989, dated 30-8-1997 and dismissing the suit of the second plaintiff2. the essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows.--plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit o.s. no. 26 of 1988 later numbered as o.s. no 126 of 1989 on the file of the civil judge (junior division), yadgir seeking for a judgment and decree declaring that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule land and for possession of the suit schedule property by dispossessing the defendants and for mesne profits and costs.3. it is averred in the plaint that plaintiff 1 is the absolute owner in possession of the land shown in the schedule which she inherited after the death of her father. the property is inherited from maternal side by plaintiff 1. plaintiff 1 is aged and blind and taking the support of her husband's brother thippanna-plaintiff 2 in managing the properties of the plaintiffs plaintiff 1 has also bequeathed the suit land in favour of plaintiff 2 by executing a will dated 23-10-1973. plaintiff 2 is the member of the family of plaintiff 1. defendants 1 and 2 are the sahukars of the village. plaintiff 1 has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2005 (HC)

Rama Nagappa Mahar @ Kamble Vs. Nagappa Mallappa Mahar @ Kamble and or ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-02-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Kant31; ILR2005KAR5386

v.g. sabhahit, j.1. this appeal by the first defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned ii additional district judge, belgaum, in r.a. no. 21/99 dated 17.6.2003, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned i additional civil judge (sr. dn), belgaum, in o.s. no. 76/1987 dated 6.4.1999, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part for partition and separate possession of their half share in the schedule i-a and schedule-11 properties.2. the essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows :the plaintiffs filed a suit o.s. no. 76/87 seeking for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. schedule i consists of two portions, schedule i-a comprises of 4 items of agricultural lands and schedule 1-b comprises of tenanted lands and schedule ii consists of three household properties and two open sites as described in the schedule. it is the case of the plaintiffs that one nagappa, the propositor of the family had three sons viz., kallappa, rama (defendant no. 1) and mallappa. plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and plaintiff 4 is the wife of mallappa. it is averred that nagappa died about 50 to 60 years next before filing of the suit. kallappa was given in adoption to one nagawwa, w/o. omya mahar in the year 1923. mallappa died on 8.12.1960 leaving behind the plaintiffs i.e., his sons and wife as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 2005 (HC)

Dilip Kumar Alias Srinivas and anr. Vs. Damodar Narayanrao Rammangudka ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-22-2005

v.g. sabhabhit, j.1. this appeal by defendants 1 to 7 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the court of the dist. judge, gulbarga in r.a. no. 17/01 dated 30-6-2003 dismissing the appeal and cross-objections preferred by the defendant no. 2 and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the court of the addl. civil judge (sr. dn.), gulbarga, in o.s. no. 203/ 1995 dated 10-8-2001 wherein the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/12th share in the suit schedule house bearing 1-3-185 situated at chincholi and in suit lands measuring 21 acres 11 guntas both situated at doulatpur village in chincholi taluk and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land in sy. no. 125 measuring 4 acres 27 guntas and for the relief of future mesne profits of the suit properties and further ordering that defendants 2 to 5 are also entitled to partition and separate possession of their 1/12th share each in the house property and the suit lands in sy. nos. 18 and 19 of doulatpur village.2. the essential facts of the case leading up to the filing of this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows:the plaintiff filed o.s. 203/95 on the file of the addl. civil judge (sr. dn.), gulbarga, seeking for partition and separate possession of his 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 2005 (HC)

Dr. Madhav Shankar Pandit and ors. Vs. Dr. Ganapati Narayan Sabhahit a ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-14-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR657

v. gopalagowda, j.1. this review petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in m.f.a. no. 5472/2001 requesting this court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this court in m.f.a. no. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. in this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the misc. first appeal.3. the first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies under section 72(4) of the bombay public trust act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the bpt act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in misc. no. 26/1998 on the file of the district judge, uttar kannada district, karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the trustee of the trust of sree vinayaka devaru temple, idagunji. therefore the order passed by this court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers from error apparent on the face of the record is the ground on which this petition is filed to review the order passed in the appeal.4. sri kamath, learned counsel placed strong reliance upon section 72(1) of the bpt act which is extracted hereunder:72(1). any person aggrieved by the decision of the charity commissioner under section 40, 41, 70 or 70a or on the questions whether a trust exists and whether such a trust is a public trust or whether any property is the property of such trust may, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2005 (HC)

Rifahul Muslimeen Education Trust and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant203; 2005(2)KarLJ325

orderr. gururajan, j.1. petitioners are minority institutions established by the respective trusts/societies for the purpose of imparting education to the students in mysore town without grant-in-aid code. petitioners have established schools for different categories of students, more particularly the minority students of mysore town. having established the necessary infrastructure in the form of building and other facilities for imparting education for the students in petitioners' institutions, they have been granted aid by the state government. they are spending considerable amount of money for education purposes. they have the protection under articles 29 and 30 of the constitution of india. petitioners state that the state government took a decision to extend akshara dasoha scheme i.e., to provide midday meal to children studying in government schools. petitioners state that the respondents are under legal duty to provide necessary infrastructure to the management. they are spending considerable amount of money in the matter of education, providing midday meal would mean higher expenditure. they say that they cannot afford such expenditure.2. according to petition averments, 2nd respondent issued a circular and it made available rs. 1,31 ps. for each of the children for providing midday meal. it also provides 90 gms. of rice, 20 gms. of toor dal, 5 gms. of salt, 3 gms. of oil and 25 gms. of vegetables. rs. 1.31 ps. is totally insufficient. a minimum of rs. 7 to 8/- is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2005 (HC)

Abdul Gafoor Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-22-2005

Reported in : (2007)7VST252(Karn)

orderd.v. shylendra kumar j.1. all these petitions are by dealers under the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (for short, 'the act'), who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the commercial tax officers at check-posts and the commercial tax officer, mobile squad, who had occasion to intercept the goods vehicles carrying the goods taxable under the act. in all these instances, the respondent-officers having passed orders in exercise of the power under section 28-aaa of the act for effecting compulsory purchase of the goods in question at the price as declared in the supporting documents and the petitioners having been deprived of such goods and in the light of the orders being entitled to receive only the price as had been indicated therein, are before this court challenging the legality of these orders, while also questioning the constitutional validity of the very provision, namely, section 28-aaa of the act, which reads as under:28-aaa. power to purchase in case of under valuation of goods to evade tax.-(1) where in respect of goods liable to tax under this act, carried in a goods vehicle or boat or held in stock by any dealer or on his behalf by any other person or held in custody of any transporter, the assessing authority or any officer empowered under section 28 or 28-a, has reason to believe that the value shown in the document accompanying the goods in transit or the purchase invoice, is lower than the prevailing market price or fair market value or mrp by a difference .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2005 (HC)

Wipro Technologies Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-23-2005

Reported in : (2007)7VST246(Karn)

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. writ petition is by a dealer under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (for short, 'the act') whose second appeal is pending before the karnataka appellate tribunal.2. it appears that the tribunal, during the pendency of the appeal, had granted certain interim orders which enured to the benefit of the petitioner. but, unfortunately for the petitioner, such interim orders having ceased in terms of the operation of provisions of second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 22 of the act which read as under:provided further that the appellate tribunal shall dispose of such appeal within a period of one hundred eighty days from the date of the order staying proceedings of recovery of one half of tax or other amount and, if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period specified, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the said period and the appellate tribunal shall not make any further order staying proceedings of recovery of the said tax or other amount.3. the present writ petition was filed by the dealer apprehending that in view of such developments, the respondents may resort to recovery proceedings.4. submission of sri vasudev, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner has already deposited 75 per cent of the disputed amount ; that even in respect of the balance 25 per cent, the petitioner has furnished security to the satisfaction of the respondents ; that in such a situation, even during the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2005 (HC)

Dr. Madan Kumar Stanley Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences and an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-16-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)KarLJ462

ordern.k. patil, j. 1. the petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 15-3-2001 passed by the 1st respondent bearing no. ao:est-v:lc:mks:7188-b:2000-01 vide annexure-h, has presented this writ petition.2. the undisputed facts of the case are that; the petitioner earlier had filed a writ petition before this court in no. 18008 of 1999 against the recommendations of the enquiry committee at paras 4.01 and 4.04. the said writ petition was rejected of by this court on 18th june, 1999 with the observation that, 'if any action has to be taken in pursuance of the report, such action can only be in accordance with law. therefore, if any action is to be taken for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as deputy librarian in pursuance of the said report, necessarily the university has to issue a show-cause notice and hear the petitioner and then take a decision in accordance with law. it is open for the petitioner to file objections to the show-cause notice issued by the respondents taking a specific ground that his appointment as the deputy librarian is not illegal and his appointment does not call for cancellation. the university has to take the explanation into account and then proceed in the matter in accordance with law'.. further, it is observed that, 'if the petitioner justifies his appointment and satisfies that there is no cause for cancellation, the university may not cancel his appointment'. after the disposal of the said writ petition, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Mehata Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-21-2005

Reported in : (2007)7VST191(Karn)

orderd.v. shylendra kumar j.1. petitioners are registered dealers both under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (for short, 'the kst act') and central sales tax act, 1956 (for short, 'the cst act'). petitioners have questioned the legality of the government notification dated march 31, 1997 (annexure c to the writ petition) issued under section 8-a of the kst act granting exemption in respect of notified items under this notification for a period of one year starting from april 1, 1998 from the tax that was payable under section 5 of the kst act.2. a notification of this nature though not one creating any liability and on the other hand being beneficial to the assessees, is nevertheless characterised as an arbitrary one, as one bringing about an invidious classification, discriminating between the business of intra-state and inter-state, in the sense that the petitioners are entitled to exemption of tax under kst act while it is not so, provided under the cst act, and therefore the notification is bad.3. to make good the argument, submission of sri s.s. angadi, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the liability under the provisions of the cst act in terms of section 8(2-a), the charging section therein, is a tax that is linked to the rate of tax under the kst act in the respective state act and in view of the exemption notification, issued under the kst act, the rate of tax under kst act becoming zero, it automatically becomes zero even under the cst .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //