Advanced Search Results

K.M Thimmaiah So MuddappA. Vs. the Station House Officer Ponnampet Pol ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 406, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A, 379, 34; Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 - Sections 62, 71(A), 144, 104(A); Karnataka Forest Rules - Rule 127(A), 165; Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 - Sections 8, 15, 19

420, 465, 468, 471, 477-A, 379 r/w 34 of IPC, Sections 62, 71(A), 144, 104(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 127(A) and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules and Sections 8, 15 and 19 of the … is accused No .3 has Crime No.160/ 2011 registered by Ponnampet police Madikeri for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477-A, 379 r/w 34 of IPC, Sections 62, 71(A), 144, 104(A) of

Sri S Muthaiah Vs. State By Cbi /acb

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Education

UNDER IPC A.2. SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION19OF P.C. ACT A.3. SANCTION AS REGARDS OFFENCES UNDER THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 B. APPLICATION OF MIND AND CONSIDERATION OF MATERIALS BY THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - B.1. W.P.NO.19179/2021 (SPL.CC. NO.135/2013) B.2. … under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 14 Applications were also filed by the petitioner/accused before the Special Court under Section 19 of P.C. Act calling in question the validity of proceedings on the ground that the orders of sanction

Sri S Muthaiah Vs. State By

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Education

UNDER IPC A.2. SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION19OF P.C. ACT A.3. SANCTION AS REGARDS OFFENCES UNDER THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 B. APPLICATION OF MIND AND CONSIDERATION OF MATERIALS BY THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - B.1. W.P.NO.19179/2021 (SPL.CC. NO.135/2013) B.2. … under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 14 Applications were also filed by the petitioner/accused before the Special Court under Section 19 of P.C. Act calling in question the validity of proceedings on the ground that the orders of sanction

Sri.s. Muthaiah Vs. State

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Education

UNDER IPC A.2. SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION19OF P.C. ACT A.3. SANCTION AS REGARDS OFFENCES UNDER THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 B. APPLICATION OF MIND AND CONSIDERATION OF MATERIALS BY THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - B.1. W.P.NO.19179/2021 (SPL.CC. NO.135/2013) B.2. … under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 14 Applications were also filed by the petitioner/accused before the Special Court under Section 19 of P.C. Act calling in question the validity of proceedings on the ground that the orders of sanction

Sri S Muthaiah Vs. State By Cbi

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Education

UNDER IPC A.2. SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION19OF P.C. ACT A.3. SANCTION AS REGARDS OFFENCES UNDER THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 B. APPLICATION OF MIND AND CONSIDERATION OF MATERIALS BY THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - B.1. W.P.NO.19179/2021 (SPL.CC. NO.135/2013) B.2. … under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 14 Applications were also filed by the petitioner/accused before the Special Court under Section 19 of P.C. Act calling in question the validity of proceedings on the ground that the orders of sanction

S. Murari and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Range Forest Officer

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 155(2), 156 and 482; Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Sections 2(16), 19 and 20; Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 - Sections 62A, 62A(1) and 155

Reported in : 2004CriLJ2272; ILR2004KAR1706; 2004(6)KarLJ115

Range Forest Officer to investigate the case against the accused for offences under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Section 35(6) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.4. Criminal … includes Special or Additional Police Officer appointed under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. The provisions of Section 19 and 20 of the Act also make it clear that a Range Forest Officer cannot be treated as

C. Rangappa Lachmiah and ors. Vs. the Range Forest Officer, Raichur an ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Mysore Forest Rules, 1969 - Rules 163, 163(1), 163(2), 164 and 165; Constitution of India - Articles 19(1) and 226; Mysore Forest Act, 1963 - Sections 30, 33, 38, 50, 50(2), 54(3), 59, 97, 101 and 102; Banking Companies Act, 1949 - Sections 10; Mysore Forest Act, 1900; Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 - Sections 5 and 6(1); Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 - Sections 10(1)

Reported in : AIR1972Kant76; AIR1972Mys76

down Rules 163 and 164 of the Rules as being ultra vires of Section 50 of the Mysore Forest Act. 1963. (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and as being violative of clauses (g) and (f) of Article 19(1)

The State of Karnataka vs Shri Byrappa

Court : Karnataka

have no legal right in the land in question. He further submitted that, Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 provides for notifying the land to fortify that land has been vested in the Department of Forest and … TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER UNDER A REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 08TH JULY, 1935; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTAUTHORITIES TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RELEVANT REVENUE RECORDS AS IT WAS

Sri Shivanna S M vs the Special Deputy Commissioner-1

Court : Karnataka

have no legal right in the land in question. He further submitted that, Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 provides for notifying the land to fortify that land has been vested in the Department of Forest and … TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER UNDER A REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 08TH JULY, 1935; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTAUTHORITIES TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RELEVANT REVENUE RECORDS AS IT WAS

Sri a Narayanappa vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

have no legal right in the land in question. He further submitted that, Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 provides for notifying the land to fortify that land has been vested in the Department of Forest and … TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER UNDER A REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 08TH JULY, 1935; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTAUTHORITIES TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RELEVANT REVENUE RECORDS AS IT WAS