Karnataka Court March 2008 Judgments
Sri Deepankar Chowdari and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3408; ILR2008KAR3268; 2008(4)KCCR2720; 2008(4)AIRKarR384
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioners/accused in C.C. No. 717/2006 on the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, are before this Court, praying for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 717/2006.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., may be stated as under:It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners/accused No. 1 to 3 are the students of Acharya Polytechnic Engineering College, Bangalore. The accused No. 1, and 2 are tenants residing at No. 415, Ranganatha Nilaya, 19th Main, 6th Cross, behind MEI Layout at Bangalore. On information, sub-inspector of Peenya police raided the residence of the petitioners on 30.11.2005 at 11.30 a.m., and found the accused were watching obscene film in the computer of Accused No 1. The Police seized the computer and 3-C.Ds. After investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet ag...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gurupadayya S/O Dadiveerayya Hiremath Vs. the Land Tribunal by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ95; 2008(3)KCCRSN224; 2008(5)AIRKarR43
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 1st August 1992 bearing No. KLRM/INM/166/90-91 passed by first respondent vide Annexure B, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is the absolute owner and is in possession and cultivation of the land bearing Sy. No. 60/4 measuring 02 acres 04 guntas situate at Virapur Village, Lingasugur Taluk and his name has been recorded in the record of rights as referred vide Annexure A. When things stood thus, the father of third respondent has filed the application for grant of occupancy rights in Sy.Nos.60/3 and 60/4 measuring 01 acre and 02 acres 04 guntas respectively situate at Virapur Village, Lingasugur Taluk. Accordingly, occupancy rights have been registered in favour of the father of the third respondent, late Sri. Channayya Hiremath, by the Land Tribunal, Lingasugur, by its order dated 1st August 1992 under Section 5(3) of the Karnataka ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishnamurthy S/O Muniraju Vs. Krishnamurthy S/O Late Muninarsappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR4447; 2009(3)KarLJ591; 2008(3)KCCRSN185; 2008(4)AIRKarR233
ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appealing for the parties and paused the record.2. Petitioner had Med IA No. 8 in O.S. No. 5614/1999, to implead him as additional defendant therein, claiming that he is co-owner of the properties involved in the said suit. Respondent No. 13 herein, had filed the said suit against respondent Nos. 1 to 12, for a decree of declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The said suit had been contested by some of the defendants therein. There was litigation between the parties, details of which is not required to be noticed, keeping in view the point that arise herein, for decision making.3. Petitioner had filed IA No. 8 in the said suit on 8.7.2005. Plaintiff in the suit had taken time to file objections to IA No. 8 and the suit was adjourned to 1.8.2005. IA No. 8 was not considered and no order was passed therein till 16.09.2005. The suit was set down for framing of issues by 19.12.2005. On 26.11.2005, plaintiff in the sui...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by the Senior Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ908; 2009(5)KarLJ68
1. Appellant was the insurer of bus bearing registration No. K.A. 02 9900. The said bus has met with an accident on 7.05.2000, on account of which one Raja @ Raju having sustained fatal injuries, has later succumbed. His legal representatives, respondent 3 to 7 herein, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) against the appellant in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore City (for short 'Tribunal') claiming compensation. The Tribunal considering the said claim petition along with another claim petition, filed by another injured person in the said accident, by its common judgment and separate award, has awarded in favour of the L.Rs of Raja @ Raju, Rs. 3,61,400/- with interest at 8% per annum, fastening the liability to pay, on the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.2. Heard Sri R. Jaiprakash, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sriyuths Rajanna and Sripad V. Shastry, learned Counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!Uttara Kannada Labour Institutions Welfare Association and ors. Vs. St ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)KarLJ725; 2008(4)AIRKarR273
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the material made available during the course of hearing.2. These two petitions are heard and disposed of together as they involve common issues.3. The petitioners in both the petitions are Labour Co-operative Societies whose members are mainly labourers belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes from different parts of the forest area comprising the 'Canara Circle' of Karnataka State, which consists of Karwar, Honnavar, Sirsi, Haliyal and Yellapur Divisions of the forest areas. The said divisions are divided into Ranges and each range is further divided into coupes for purposes of 'logging'. Logging involves removing the deadwood - (dried or fallen trees) -earmarked by the Forest Department, cutting them into logs which are classified either as timber or firewood and transporting them, to be stacked at the Government depots.The Central Board of Forestry resolved, in the year 1980, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanthinath Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR5154
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 14.1.2008 - annexure F, the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 3.5.2005 - annexure E and also the order passed by the Tahsildar, Gulbarga on 27.1.2003 - annexure D.2. According to the petitioner, in respect of property in Sy. No. 99 measuring 32.03 acres situate at Melkunda Village of Gulbarga, one Indumathi W/o the petitioner was the owner. The said Indumathi Venkudre died on 20.9.2002. Subsequent to her death, petitioner being her husband as a Class I heir, applied for mutation in the prescribed format by producing the death certificate before the Tahsildar on 27.9.2002. However, the same was contested by the 4th respondent who objected for the mutation entry on the ground that the said Indumathi had executed a registered will in his favour on 9.9.2002 bequeathing the land in his favour. The petitioner denied the execution of the Will and contended that it was a forg...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. T. Subba Rao Vs. Sri. T. Narasimha Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2768; 2009(3)KarLJ520
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Sri. Abhinav, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the registry is unnecessarily insisting on the appellant for filing an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record, that it is not necessary, that the only consequence of not filing an application to bring on record, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent within the permitted time of 90 days, is that the appeal abates. But Limitation Act provides a further 60 days time there from to file an application for setting aside abatement and such an application seeking for setting aside abatement having been filed within a further 60 days from the initial 90 days from the date of death of the respondent, the application for setting aside abatement is in time and when once this application is filed, application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent should be considered...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Chaithra and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: ILR2008KAR2710; 2009(4)KarLJ273; 2008(3)KCCR1515; 2008(4)AIRKarR239; 2008CriLJNOC1052
ORDERR.B. Naik, J.1. On 23.8.2001, one deceased Mohan Kumar got married to accused No. 1-Chaitra. After the marriage, Chaitra who was not desirous of making a living in a joint family, insisted that her husband should arrange for a separate living. She hardly stayed in the matrimonial home for a period of two weeks. She left the house of her husband and started living in the house of her parents. The parents of Mohan Kumar, to settle the life of the newly married couple, organised a separate house for them and in the said house the accused No. 1 Chaitra and her husband stayed for a period of one month. Thereafter, Chaitra made a grievance that the house is very small and if her husband Mohan Kumar is in a position to provide a big bungalow and lead a luxurious life, he can do so or otherwise he should forget her. She also stated that he is incapable of organising a big house and he should hang himself. She removed the sacred Thali and threw it on him and went away to her parent's house...
Tag this Judgment!Sri C. Shivalingaiah S/O Channe Gowda and ors. Vs. the State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)KarLJ201; 2008(2)KCCCR1203; 2008(4)AIRKarR216
ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. The Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited - the 5th respondent herein is a co-operative society (for short 'Society') registered under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'Act'). The society is managed by a committee of management elected by its members for a term of five years. On 27.03.2005 elections were held to the committee of management of society and 15 directors that is the petitioners in these three writ petitions were elected for a term of five years. On 14.06.2007 the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice under Section 30(1) of the Act framing 16 charges and to show cause as to why committee of management of the society shall not be superceded. The second respondent in the impugned order in the appeal before him summarises the charges as under:A. Failure to follow the instructions issued under Section 68 based on audit report of 2004-05 (Charge 1)B. Charges pertaining to s...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahesh and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2804; [2008(119)FLR246]; ILR2008KAR3262; 2008(3)KCCR1852; 2008(5)AIRKarR365
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the insurer against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere challenging the liability fastened on the appellant to pay compensation to respondent No. 1.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-1-claimant was the victim of road accident that occurred on 21 -2-2002. According to the claimant, he was working as a loader in the lorry. On 21-2-2002 on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, the said lorry dashed against a mini bus which was in a stationed position. Consequently, the claimant sustained injuries to his legs, hips, ankle and foot. He had taken treatment both as in-patient and out-patient. The Commissioner, after considering the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,28,280/- to the claimant--respondent-1 and fastened the liability on the insurer-appellant herein to pay the same. Being aggrieved, the insurer has filed this appeal challengi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »