Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 2003 Page 3 of about 118 results (0.019 seconds)

Mar 04 2003 (HC)

Mallappa Adiveppa Hadapad Vs. Smt. Rudrawwa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-04-2003

Reported in : ILR2003KAR1774; 2003(3)KarLJ470

majage, j.1. this appeal is by the appellant, who was 1st defendant in o.s.no. 20/1986 on the file of the court of civil judge at dharwad, challenging the judgment and decree passed therein by which the sard suit brought by the 1st respondent, who was plaintiff therein, has been decreed in part holding her as owner of land in block no. 111/1 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas of haletegur village and entitled to its possession, though dismissed the suit for other reliefs claimed and also for land in block no. 111/2 covered by sale deed dated 24.4.1972, and also against the judgment and decree passed in r.a.no. 20/1990 on the file of the court of ii addl. district judge at dharwad, since the judgment and decree passed by the trial court came to be affirmed by the said 1st appellate court.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereafter as shown in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court, i.e, plaintiff and defendants.3. the brief facts, which gave rise to the present appeal, are: the plaintiff, who is the wife of 2nd defendant, claiming as the owner and possessor of the two suit lands on the basis of inheritance through her mother, brought suit for various reliefs with injunction, including the relief of declaration of ownership over suit lands and also with regard to two sale deeds executed by defendants no. 2 to 4 in favour of 1st defendant and, alternatively claimed possession of suit lands from 1st defendant with mesne profits, if found by court not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2003 (HC)

Basamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-04-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)KarLJ129

ordern.k. patil, j.1. these petitioners are the owners and in peaceful possession of the land bearing sy. no. 63 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situated at noo-lagere village, hirekerur taluk. the land in question is a service inam land. the father of the petitioners was the inamdar of the land in question. when things stood thus, one shanthaveerappa alleged to have (claiming as a tenant) filed form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. the said application had come up for consideration on 25-9-1975. on that day, the tribunal passed the impugned order in no. klr sr 95. in pursuance of that order, the 3rd respondent has issued notice to the petitioners on 20-8-1985 to give possession of land in question. these petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 25-9-1975 and the notice dated 20-8-1985 before this court in w.p. no. 13563 of 1985. when the matter was pending for hearing, in view of the amendment to the land reforms act, the said petition filed by the petitioners has been transferred to the land reforms appellate authority (for short the 'appellate authority'). the appellate authority has assigned no. lra 300 of 1987. when the matter was pending for consideration before the appellate authority in view of the amendment to the land reforms act, 1990, the appellate authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file civil petition under section 17 of the amendment act. accordingly, the petitioners have filed civil petition no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 2003 (HC)

Marishetty Vs. Land Tribunal and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-27-2003

Reported in : 2004(2)KarLJ600

ordern.k. patil, j.1. the petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 30-9-1981 in case nos. lrf 56, 55/74-75 passed by the land tribunal, nanjangud, insofar as 1 acre 6 guntas in sy. no. 228/3 of byalaru village, nanjangud taluq has filed this writ petition.2. the case of the petitioner is that, the land in sy. no. 228/3 of byalaru village in nanjangud tq., measuring 2 acres 12 guntas excluding 2 guntas of kharab originally-belonged to shettaiah, the father of the petitioner. the said land is the ancestral property. after the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner and his brother madashetty succeeded to the said property. his brother madashetty was dumb and was unmarried, continued to live with the petitioner till his death. the kathastood in the name of madashetty, after the demise of their father. the petitioner's brother madashetty mortgaged the said land in favour of chikkamma w/o. rangashetty in the year 1932. subsequently, simple mortgage was created in favour of devarajaiah by the petitioner and his sister sannamma during 1938. further, the case of the petitioner is that, subsequently, out of 2 acres 12 guntas, an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas was sold in favour of nagaiah, the 3rd respondent herein and the remaining extent of 1 acre 6 guntas continued to be the property of the petitioner and he is in possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the same as owner. to substantiate his case, he has relied on the rtc for the agricultural years .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2003 (HC)

Namdev Vyankat Ghadge and anr. Vs. Chandrakant Ganpat Chadge and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-25-2003

Reported in : ILR2003KAR1794

shivaraj v. patil, j.1. this appeal is by the plaintiffs challenging the validity and the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 27th june, 1994 passed in second appeal no. 406 of 1994 by the high court of bombay affirming the concurrent findings of the trial court and that of the first appellate court. in order to appreciate the contentions urged before us, it has become necessary to state the facts to the extent necessary for deciding the questions that arise for consideration. the family pedigree of the parties is as set out below:bali------------------------------------------------------------------------------vyankat (died on 8.2.1978 anand rao died in 1930widow krishnabai(defendant no.2)died in april 1980 # allegedly adopted*dattaraya on 10.6.78----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | |(peti. no.1 (peti. no.2 (res. no.1 sarda leelavai bhagirithi(plaintiff (plaintiff (defendant (defendant (defendant (defendantno.1 no.2 no.1 no.3 no.4 no.5namdev laxman ganpat#daughter's son*dattatraya adoptedby krishnabai(defendant no.6)2. bali had two sons, namely vyankat and anand rao, anand rao died on 6.7.1930 in joint family. the defendant no.2 was the wife of anand rao. after death of anand rao, vyankat became absolute owner of the suit property. the share of anand rao in suit property merged and the defendant no.2 has only right of maintenance being a widow the joint family of plaintiffs and defendant no.1. plaintiffs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2003 (HC)

Budavanat Subraya Palekar Vs. Babu Vajra Chandavarkar and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-20-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Kant105; ILR2004KAR4068

k. sreedhar rao, j. 1. the counsel for the appellant submits that the first respondent died on 11-11-2002 and the respondents 2 and 3 are his sons and they are already on record and they sufficiently represent the estate of the first respondent. therefore, no need to bring on record any other l. rs. 2. the second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the principal munsiff, sirsi in os no. 255/89 and confirmed in appeal by the civil judge, senior division, sirsi in ra' no. 8/95. the appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deed obtained by the defendant/respondent dated 28-5-1959 is illegal and outcome of fraud. the plaintiff contends that the suit schedule landed property absolutely belongs to him and he was in government service. on account of his frequent transfer from place to place the defendant was made to stay in the suit property since 1956 and allowed him to manage the property as he was his sister's husband. the revenue records, however, continued to be in the name of the plaintiff. it is said that in the year 1986, the defendant tried to secure mutation of his name in the revenue records. the plaintiff, on coming to know about fraud and fabrication of records, challenged the orders of mutation before revenue appellate authorities and also filed the present suit seeking declaration that the document of sale is illegal and not binding, also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2003 (HC)

Rayanagouda Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-18-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)KarLJ450

ordern. kumar, j.1. the petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order dated 1-6-2001 passed by the first respondent as per annexure-d, by which mutation entry has been made in favour of respondents 2 to 5 on the basis of the compromise decree entered into between the parties in the civil court.2. the first ground of attack is that the said order is' against the petitioner showing him to be dead. secondly, it is contended that by the impugned order mutation entry has been made in the names of respondents 2 to 5 in respect of property bearing sy. no. 110/2, when actually the said property has not fallen to their share. thirdly, on the ground that though the right of respondents 3 to 5 to the properties in dispute is not in question, admittedly, they are not in possession of those properties and therefore their names could not have been entered in column 12 of rtc. if only the petitioner had been served with a notice, he would have appeared before the deputy commissioner and would have brought to the notice of the deputy commissioner the aforesaid facts, in which event, order adverse to his interest would not have been passed. therefore, it is contended that the impugned order passed by the deputy commissioner is liable to be set aside.3. in fact, the impugned order was challenged before this court in w.p. no. 24457 of 2001 by respondents 6 to 9. after contest, the said writ petition came to be dismissed by a considered order. the facts set out in the said order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2003 (HC)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.V. Shantharam

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-22-2003

Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Kar)300; [2003]261ITR435(KAR); [2003]261ITR435(Karn)

g.c. bharuka, j. 1. this departmental appeal has been filed under section 260a of the income-tax act, 1961 (in short 'the act'), against the order dated october 31, 2001, passed by the income-tax appellate tribunal, bangalore bench 'b', in i. t. (ss) a. no. 12/bang of 1999. it pertains to a block assessment made against the assessee for the period 1989-90 to 1999-2000 made under section 158bc of the act. the substantial question of law which has fallen for our consideration is--'whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the tribunal for cancelling the block assessment in question are perverse being contrary to the materials on record and have been arrived at on conjectures and surmises ?'foundational facts :2. the assessee is an individual. at the material time he was the managing director of mayura hotels pvt. ltd. and swathi hotels pvt. ltd., bangalore. he was also a partner in hotel mayura in bellary and shanthakumar ganeshlal enterprises, bangalore. he was also carrying on a proprietorship hotel business in the name and style new prakash bhavan at bangalore as a karta of his hindu undivided family. he was being regularly assessed for the income derived from these concerns as also the other sources disclosed by him.3. on the basis of some information that the assessee had made unaccounted investments, search under section 132 of the act was conducted in his premises on may 27, 1998. during the search, unaccounted investments in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2003 (HC)

Bharamavva and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-09-2003

Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ120

ordern.k. patil, j.1. the petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 27-4-1977 passed by the 2nd respondent-land tribunal (annexure-c) insofar as grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in sy. no. 153/1-a of billahalli village in favour of sri basappa angadi, father of the respondents 3 and 4 have filed this writ petition.2. the case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of land bearing r.s. no. 153/1-a measuring an extent of 1 acre 28 guntas including 2 guntas of kharab land situated at billahalli village, kuppavara hobli, ranebennur taluk. the father of respondents 3 arid 4, one sri basappa angadi has filed form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question, which had come up for consideration before the land tribunal on 27-4-1977. the land tribunal, after hearing, recording the evidence of late basappa angadi and considering the material available on record granted the occupancy rights in favour one basappa angadi. further, the case of the petitioners is that, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the land tribunal has proceeded ex parte and passed the orders unilaterally. no opportunity as such, was given to the petitioners or conducted any enquiry as provided under the relevant provisions of the land reforms rules, 1974. further, they have stated that there is a delay in filing this writ petition because they came to know about the order of the tribunal only when respondents 3 and 4 made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2003 (HC)

P. Mohan Vs. Basavaraju

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-09-2003

Reported in : AIR2003Kant213; II(2003)BC237; 2003(3)KarLJ138

k. sreedhar rao, j.1. this is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed in o.s. no. 7338 of 1994 on the file of xxx additional city civil judge, bangalore.2. the appeal although is at admission stage at the request of parties, taken up for final hearing. the necessary certified copy of depositions and documents are furnished by the plaintiff and the defendant for the benefit of perusal.3. the respondent in appeal as a plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of rs. 1,73,275/- with costs and interest. it is the case of the plaintiff that during the period 1-8-1990 to 5-3-1991 a sum of rs. 1,19,500/- was paid. on several occasions it was paid by cash and one occasion by cheque for a sum of rs. 40,000/- towards hand loan. when the hand loans were given there was no liability on the part of the defendant-appellant to pay interest. on 15-12-1991 it is said that the appellant acknowledged the liability in a sum of rs. 1,19,500/- marked at ex. p. 1 and also issued three cheques on 15-12-1991 for a sum of rs. 45,000/-, on 30-5-1992 for a sum of rs. 40,000/- and on 10-6-1992 for a sum of rs. 34,5007-. the cheques came to be dishonoured, proceedings were instituted under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act in cc nos. 4835 to 4837 of 1992 on the file of ii additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bangalore. in the criminal cases, the appellant/defendant was acquitted by the order of this court. however, it was observed that the observations made in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2003 (HC)

In Re: Bank Muscat Saog

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-27-2003

Reported in : [2004]120CompCas340(Kar); ILR2004KAR1656; [2004]51SCL191(Kar)

n. kumar, j.1. the petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of oman and having its designated office at post box no. 134, postal code 112, ruwi, sultanate of oman. the petitioner-company set up a branch office at bangalore vide licence no. (bg) no. 1797-98 elated march 16, 1998 issued by the reserve bank of india under section 22(1) of the banking regulation act, 1949 to carry on banking business in india. they have no other branches or establishments in india except at bangalore. the authorised share capital of the petitioner-company as on march, 2003, is 7,50,00,000 rial omani equivalent to 922 crores 50 lakhs of indian rupees. issued, subscribed and paid up capital is 4 crores 9 lakhs 37,480 rial omani equivalent to 603 crores 16 lakhs 10,040 indian rupees. the object of the petitioner-company is to carry on commercial and investment banking business, including the financing of trade and projects, etc. as set out in the memorandum of association. the petitioner-company is carrying on business through bangalore branch since 1998 which is situated at no. 29, infantry road, bangalore-1, which is the principal place of business of the petitioner-company in india. the company by name centurion bank limited which hereinafter referred to as a transferee company was incorporated on june 30, 1994, as public limited company under the provisions of the companies act, 1956, having its registered office at durga nivas, mahatma gandhi road, panaji-403001, goa. the transferee .....

Tag this Judgment!


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