Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 8 of about 95 results (0.009 seconds)

Sep 09 2005 (HC)

B.M. Sukumar Shetty, Managing Trustee, Kollur Mookambika Temple and or ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-09-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR5241; 2005(5)KarLJ481

h.n. nagamohan das, j.1. india is a land of religious and temples. the anthropological survey of india published the series 'peoples of india' describing the indian society, culture and traditions. some of the main conclusions of the survey is as under:(i) ours is one of the most diverse countries in the world. there are 4,635 ethnic communities in our country, each with its own hereditary features, language, dress, religious, customs, food habits, family relations and marriage rites. the basic lifestyles of these communities comprise the mainstream of the lives of our country's people;(ii) the people of india have emerged from miscegenation of several races like proto-australoid, paleo-mediterranean, caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. various nationalities involved are: aryans, persians, greek, huns, arabs, turks, africans, mongolians and europeans. there has been so much intermingling that nowhere can one find a 'pure' specimen of any nationality;(iii) it has been observed that difference in colour, height and build and other hereditary features are much more pronounced between members of the same community, as compared to those between members of different community;(iv) one of the biggest sources of our diversity and unity is language. there are about 325 languages and 25 scripts in india. these have emerged from different language families like the indo-aryan, tibeto-burmese, indo-european, dravidian, austro-asiatic, and amanese and indo-iranian. over 65% of our people .....

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 15 2005 (HC)

B.N. Kamalanabha Reddy Vs. Munivenkatappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-15-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR222

order 6 rule 17 - amendment of pleadings - whether proposed amendment is permissible after the amendment to the code - held - a reading of section 16(2)(b) would make it abundantly clear that some of the provisions are omitted under order 6 and some of the provisions are inserted or substituted by amended code and shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before the commencement of the amended provision. therefore the proviso cannot be an impediment or bar in allowing the amendment application if it is otherwise on merits deserves to be allowed.petition rejected.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2005 (HC)

Cref Finance Limited Vs. Sri Shanthi Homes Private Ltd. Company and or ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-20-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Kant54; ILR2006KAR528; 2006(5)KarLJ69

orderajit j. gunjal, j.1. the petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 3 are defendants 1 to 3 in o.s. no. 15045/2001. the said suit is filed to recover a sum of rs. 19,33,74,411/- jointly and severally from respondents and others along with interest at the rate of 30% p.a. and all other consequential reliefs. suffice it to say that the proceedings had a checkered career.2. the facts giving rise to the present proceedings could be summarised as follows:in terms of certain memorandum of understanding dated 29.9.1995, the petitioner had paid a sum of rs. 3.52 crores to the 1st respondent and an additional sum of rs. 2.88 crores to the 3rd respondent in all aggregating to rs. 6.40 crores. in terms of the said agreement between the parties, the respondents were not in a position to develop the immovable properties agreed to be sold under the said memorandum of understanding the respondents who are the defendants would refund the said amount paid by the petitioners together with interest. since the said amount was not paid by the respondents, the present suit is filed for recovery of the said amount which in inclusive of interest. it appears certain correspondence has taken place between the parties in respect of the dispute and there appears to be a certain confirmation letter stated to have been written by one of the defendants confirming a sum of rs. 920 lakhs, which according to the petitioner is the principle amount claimed in the suit which in inclusive of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2005 (HC)

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Belgaum Branch Vs. Na ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-21-2005

Reported in : III(2006)ACC260; AIR2006Kant40; 2006(2)KarLJ611

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. the deceased in mvc 1535/96 is one kumar snehal alias vishal navinchandra patel, minor boy aged about 11 years. the tribunal awarded compensation of rs. 304176.83 paise with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. this court in smt. puttamma v. d.v. krishnappa reported in ilr 1999 kar sn. no. 69 has held that the minimum compensation payable in case of death of minor child is rs. 150000/-. the parents are the petitioners and they contend that after the death of their child the mother had to go for artificial insemination for begetting a child, for which, it is said that they spent rs. 12,4000/-. the said amount is also claimed as damages. the treatment taken by the petitioners to beget a child by artificial insemination is only a remote consequence and not an immediate consequence of the actionable injury.2. in that view, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of rs. 15,0000/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till payment as against rs. 304176,83 paise awarded by the tribunal.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2005 (HC)

Shriram Chits (Bangalore) Ltd. Vs. Sri Panchakshari and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-23-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR498; 2006(6)KarLJ652

ordern.s. veerabhadraiah, j.1. this is the decree holder's revision being aggrieved of the order passed in ex. case no. 130/2000 on the file of the ii addl. civil judge (sr. dn), mangalore, dated 2-2-2001 dismissing the execution petition as not maintainable.2. the brief facts of the case are as follows:the petitioner m/s shriram chits (bangalore) ltd., hampankatta branch, mangalore is a chit company registered under the chit funds act, 1982. the subscriber viz., the principal debtor sri shyam bhandary of uppinangady was a member of the chit fund and drawn the chit amount on the co-obligation of respondents sri panchakshari and sri m.p. balakrishna bhandary. the subscriber defaulted in payment of the subscription due in accordance with the terms of the chit agreement. in respect of the recovery of the dues, the petitioner initiated proceedings as provided under chapter xii of the chit funds act, 1982, before the development officer, bantwal, who is the nominee for adjudication of the disputes and an award came to be passed against the principal debtor and the sureties. the award appears to have been submitted to the joint registrar of chits, mysore division, mysore for certification as required under section 71(a) of the chit funds act, 1982. a certificate dated 10.1.2000 was issued by the joint registrar of chits, mysore division, mysore. the decree holder presented an execution petition before the ii additional civil judge (sr. dn), mangalore, for recovery of an amount of .....

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!

Sep 29 2005 (HC)

Diamond Feeds Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst. Ii) a ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-29-2005

Reported in : (2007)8VST537(Karn)

orderh.l. dattu, j.1. our learned brother, justice sri shylendra kumar, by his order dated july 15, 2004, has referred these two writ petitions in exercise of his powers under section 9 of the karnataka high court act, 1961, for consideration by a division bench of this court, since according to the learned judge, the question of law involved in these writ petitions is one of considerable general importance having repercussions on large number of dealers similarly placed like petitioners as well as on the revenue. that is how these petitions are posted before us for determination of legal issues involved in these writ petitions.2. we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 3. the only issue that would arise in these two writ petitions for our consideration and decision is, whether the notification issued by the state government in exercise of its powers under section 8a of the act dated september 23, 1993, is in any way at variance with the industrial policy decision of the state government for the period 1993-98 ?4. we do not intend to dwell in detail the fact-situation in the present cases. suffice to observe that the petitioners are dealers registered under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act and are engaged in the manufacture and sale of animal feeds. they are also registered as new industrial units (small-scale sector) and according to them, they are eligible for tax exemption both under the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 ('the kst .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2005 (HC)

M.N. Venkateshaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Commissioner ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-05-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR5084; 2005(6)KarLJ452

s.r. nayak, j.1. the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge dated 27th september, 2001 passed in writ petition no. 26831 of 2000, has preferred this writ appeal. the learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition.2. the background facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal, in brief, are as follows:the grandmother of appellant, one late smt. kalamma, was granted 11 acres 34 guntas of land in sy. no. 50 of mallepura village, channarayapatna hobli, devanahalli taluk, bangalore rural district during 1940s. in the same survey number, 5 acres of land was also granted to the father of the appellant, narayanappa by name. thus, an extent of 16 acres 34 guntas of land, in total, in sy. no. 50 of mallepura village was granted in favour of the grandmother and father of the appellant. the said land is hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule land', for the sake of brevity. it is the case of the appellant that from the date of the grant, all through the schedule land has been in actual possession and personal cultivation of the family of the appellant and all the revenue records also support that claim. when the matter stood thus, in the year 1995, on account of rivalry in the village, some of the residents of mallepura village made an application to the tahsildar, devanahalli taluk-4th respondent herein, to set aside the entries in column no. 9 and column no. 12(2) of pahanis which were standing in the name of the appellant and his predecessors .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2005 (HC)

Mahathma Gandhi Vidya Peetha Trust and anr. Vs. All India Council for ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-05-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Kant17; ILR2005KAR6073; 2005(6)KarLJ346

orders. abdul nazeer, j. 1. the 1st petitioner is the trust and the 2nd petitioner is an engineering college run by the 1st petitioner. in this case the petitioners have called in question the order passed by the all india counsel for technical education (for short, 'aicte'), the 1st respondent herein dated 4-8-2005 (annexure-a) imposing penalty for the excess admission made by the college for the academic year 2003-2004 and for quashing of the communication dated 15-8-2005 (annextire-q), whereby the intake of the petitioner for the academic year 2005-2006 was reduced by 46 seats in the undergraduate level degree courses in engineering.2. the annual intake of the 2nd petitioner college was fixed by the aicte at 730 in the undergraduate level courses for the academic year 1979-80 and onwards in various disciplines. by a communication dated 30-4-2003, aicte reduced the annual intake of the college for the academic year 2003-2004 to 600. the college has sent a letter dated 23-5-2003 to the aicte seeking restoration of the intake. challenging the fixation of the intake, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this court in w.p. no. 25952 of 2003 for a mandamus, directing the aicte to withdraw the said communication insofar as it sought to reduce the intake in the college and restore the existing annual intake. this court granted an interim order of stay of the communication dated 30-4-2003. the writ petition was disposed of on 9-6-2003 by directing the aicte to treat the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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