Karnataka Court November 2009 Judgments

Thippanaika Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ275

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-1-2009 passed in W.P. No. 2506 of 2006 (SC-ST) Thippanaika v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, after quashing Annexures-C and D, dated 24-11-2005 and 26-11-2005 resuming and restoring the land in favour of the appellant herein, challenged this appeal urging certain grounds.2. The ground of attack of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is that the sale was declared to be null and void. The effect of quashing of the order passed by the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent is amounts to declaring the alienation made by the original grantee in favour of the 3rd respondent dated 1-4-1961 is within the stipulated period. Therefore, the learned Single Judge should have asked the 2nd respondent to resume and restore the land in favour of the appellant herein. As the 2nd respondent in law is required to resume and restore the land is the statutory effect of the cancellation of the sale made in favou...

Smt. R. Sarojamma Vs. A.C. Mallikarjunaswamy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ277

ORDERB. Sreenivase Gowda, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court dated 1-8-2009 directing the petitioner to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property in favour of the respondent within two months from the date of order, has preferred this petition.2. The respondent-landlord has filed an eviction petition in H.R.C. No. 29 of 2009 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short).3. The petitioner-tenant contested the matter. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties by impugned order allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent under both Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Act and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises in favour of the respondent within two months from the date of order. Aggrieved by the same, the peti...

F. Nataraja S/O Eshwarappa, Adi Karnataka by Caste Teacher Om Sri. Swa ...

Court: Karnataka

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 75/2006 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) has challenged in this appeal the correctness of the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 21st September 2007 passed in the said case convicting him for the offence under Section 376 IPC and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of S.L for a further period of three months.2. Stated in brief, the case of the prosecution as alleged in Ex.P1 complaint dated 15.11.2003 filed by PW1 prosecutrix is as under:(a) The prosecutrix viz., Kum.Renuka, daughter of Lakshmana, aged about 14 years has been studying in 8th standard in Swamy Vivekananda School at Hiriyur Town, District Chitradurga. The accused Nataraj has been a teacher in the said school. The prosecutrix had been in friendly terms with the accused while studying...

Shri Ishwar Vs. Sri Suresh

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR4310

ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioner is facing criminal charge before the J.M.F.C., Ramdurga in C.C. No. 160/2007 (P.C. No. 35/2007) for an offence punishable Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (Act for short). It is alleged that, the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- on 23/03/2007, which on deposit in Bank was returned unpaid. A complaint was filed by the respondent Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence Under Section 138 of the Act. Complainant deposed as P.W.1. Two other witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3. The case was posted for examination of the accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, who is the accused, has filed an application for referring the cheque in question for an examination by an expert contending that he had issued a blank cheque and a bond paper to the complainant, who has written thereon the amount etc. according to his choice and the writings in the cheque...

Shri Somashekar D. Patil S/O Mr. D.S. Patil Vs. Shri D.S. Patil S/O Sr ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in Ex. Petition No. 1700/2008, He is calling in question the order dated 07.10.2009 as at Annexure-D to the petition. By the said order, the Executing Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein to recall the delivery warrant and has thereafter reissued the delivery warrant with liberty to break open the lock, if the premises is under lock. The respondents herein are the decree holders.2. The brief facts leading to the impugned order is that the petitioner herein who is the son of the first respondent and the brother of the second respondent had instituted a suit in O.S. No. 793/2004 against the respondents herein and also his mother Smt. Nagarathna Patil and sister Smt. Nirmala Section Patil. The suit is one for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the respondents herein who were the defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 10 under Order 39 Rul...

Muniswamy @ Ranganath S/O Chinnappa Vs. State of Karnataka by Vijayana ...

Court: Karnataka

Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The appellant herein was accused In Sessions Case No. 462/2007 on the file of the Fast Track IX Court, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short), has challenged the correctness of the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 20.8.2009 passed in the said case convicting the appellant - accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for three months.2. Stated in brief the case of the prosecution as alleged in Ex.P5 complaint dated 22.11.2006 filed by the complainant namely PW4 Nagesh Nayak - the Co-ordinator, Association for Promoting Social Action ('APSA' for short) is as under;(a) On 14.11.2006 at 11.00 a.m. one Sister Flomy (PW9) telephoned to the complainant and informed him that she was sending to him one girl viz. Kum.Sharanya (prosecutrix) aged about 16 years as she was suffering from sever...

Kum Anusha D/O Late Sri P.M. Guru Murthy Since Being Minor Represented ...

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession on the ground that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff No. 1 is the minor daughter of 2nd plaintiff and late P.M. Gurumurthy. One Kanthaiah is the propositus. He has a son by name P.K. Marulasiddaiah. His wife is Rudramma. They had 5 daughters by name Girijamnia, Kalavethi, Charuiramma, Nagarathnamma and Usha and a son by name Gurumurthy. Sri P.K. Manilasiddaiah had got ancestral property at Pattangere Village, Kadur Taluk and purchased several other properties and registered the same in the name of his wife i.e., 1st defendant Rudramma. Marulasiddaiah was working as a Village Secretary. After retirement, he died. Plaintiff are the legal heirs...

Sri Doddmarigowda S/O Late Marigowda and Vs. Smt. Jayamma W/O Late Huc ...

Court: Karnataka

N. Kumar, J.1. This appeal is preferred by defendants-1 and 2 in O.S. No. 33/97. challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which has granted a decree for partition and separate possession and granting 1/2 share to the plaintiffs in the suit.2. The subject matter of the suit is 5 items of immovable properties. Item No. 1 is the house property and vacant site. Item Nos. 2 to 5 are agricultural land. One Marigowdn is the propositus. The second defendant Channamma is his wife. They had three sons by name Karithimmegowda Doddamarigowda and Huchegowda. Karithimmegowda predeceased his lather in 1976. Plaintiffs are the wife and minor daughter of Huchegowda. The first defendant is Doddamarigowda. defendants-3 and 4 are daughters of Marigowda. The case of the plaintiffs is that all the suit schedule properties are joint, family properties. There is no partition in the family. In fact, in the lifetime of Huchegowda, he had thrown the plaintiffs out of the house. They had tiled a su...

Klg Systel Limited. Vs the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition is questioning the re-tender notification dated 14.10.2009 issued by the respondents for appointment of IT Implementation Agency, even though the petitioner claims that he emerged as a successful bidder pursuant to the earlier tender notification dated 19.08.2009 und ?r the Restructured Acceleration Power Development and Reforms. The case of the petitioner is that the 2'1" respondent is wholly Government owned undertaking. The subject matter of this writ petition would revolve around the Re-structured Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programmed (for short APDRF) during the XI plan. In the year 2003. The Government of India approved Additional Central Assistance of Rs.40.000 errors during the X plan at APDRP out of which a sum of Rs.20.000 errors was towards investment component i.e.. Towards grant and Ixian and Rs.20,000 Crore towards grant under Incentive component. The Ministry took up an evaluation exercise of the programmed thro...

Dayanand Kumar Alias Dayanand Vs. State by Mahadevapura Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ573

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioner has sought for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 445 of 2009 of Mahadevapura Police for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. It is alleged that on 10-12-2008 around 11.45 a.m. this petitioner along with one more person came to the complainant's house for tiles work and having assaulted her, took away the gold jewelry and cash kept in the cupboard.3. Heard.4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the injured has not sustained any injuries and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner.5. The complainant has stated the presence of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed....