Karnataka Court October 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt Parvathithyagew W/O.Thyagaraj Vs. V Somashekar S/O Late Vsudev Red ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. These appeals have been filed by the complainant assailing the order of acquittal dated 23.11.2007 passed by the JMFC, Chitradurga in CC No.644/2003 and in CC No.237/2003 respectively.2. According to the complainant, accused approached the complainant and her husband and requested for a financial assistance of Rs.2,50,000/- for their business As the husband of the complainant had no money, he told the complainant to lend money to the accused and morasy was lent on 1.10.1999 by the complainant to the accused. Towards repayment of the said loan, the accused is said to have issued two post dated cheques for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively dated 1.1.2002 totaling Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Vyahya Bank, Cmtradurga. When the complainant demanded for repayment, he has not paid the amount with interest at 2% per month. Hence, the complainant presented the cheques for encashment and the same were returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. After causing kgal notice, during s...
M/S. Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust and anr Vs. Smt. Jayalakshmamma W/O Cha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. Though the matter is posted for hearing on Interlocutory application, by consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA it is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 04.10.2008 in O.S.No.5328/2008 directing him to pay the Court fee on market value of the suit.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this n are as under;The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and has instituted a suit in O.S.No.5328/2008 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore against the respondent herein, who are the defendants. The prayer in the suit is for declaration that the sale deed dated 15.10.2007 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second numbered as site No.1 is illegal, fraudulent and void and it is not binding on h interest ever the said property and also for decree of injunction. Institution of the suit, the office raised the proper and that he has to pay Court fee on the market value of the site under Section 38 of the Kar...
Sri. Putta Swamy GowdA. S/O. Late Krishine Gowda Vs. State of Kamataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner herein has sought for quashing of the proceedings in PCR. No. 5/08 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (SR.DN.) and CJM. Hassan.2. I-earned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S. No. 123/2007 against the 2"(1) respondent before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Hassan for specific performance of the agreement dated 28.08.2003 said to have been executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner by receiving the balance sale consideration of 30,000/- and the said suit is pending. He submits that the 2,nd respondent after 1 Vi years of her appearance hi the said suit and after filing written statement filed a private complaint against him. The trial Court registering the said complaint as PCR No. 5/2003 by impugned order referred the same to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court petitioner has preferred this petition seeking quashing of further pro...
Sri.Chalvaraju S/O Late Channaiah Vs. State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. The petitioner is the husband of the first informant. Their marriage was performed about 12 years back. They have three children. It is alleged in the first information that the petitioner was always harassing and beating the first informant. On 27.9.2010, the petitioner assaulted the first informant and caused severe injuries and she was driven away from her house along with her children. Therefore, the first informant lodged first information on 29.10.2010.2. Having regard to the relationship between the parties from the date of marriage and also considering the facts that petitioner and first informant had lead marital life for a period of 12 years and offences for which the crime is registered, without going into further details, the direction sought for is granted for a limited period to enable the petitioner to seek regular bail.3. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:ORDERPetition is accepted. Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, subject to following conditions:...
State Represented by Nangali Police Station Vs. Srinivasa @ Srinivasa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. This appeal has been filed by the Stare challenging the Judgment dated 14.07.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court-II, Kolar in SC No.252/2000 acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 IPC.2. It is the case of prosecution that on 10.08.2000 near Nalagutta Forest Area in Gudipalli Village in Mulbagal Taluk at about it.30 p.m., the accused committed the murder of deceased Nagaraj and thereby committed an offence which is punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is further charged against the accused that on the said date, time and place, the accused threatened CW2 - J Changa Reddy with criminal intimidation with danger to his life, if he were to disclose his such act of murder to any other persons, thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence which is punishable under Section 506 of IPC.3. The prosecution in order to prove the above said case has examined in all 23 witnesses and got marked Exs.Pl to P22 and produced MOsl to 6. The defence of the a...
Saifulla @ Abdul Azeez. Vs. B.S. VenkatarayA. S/O. KallappA. and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. These appeals are filed by the petitioner in W P No.39278/98 who is also arrayed as seventh respondent in W P Nos. 38173-80/98 being aggrieved by the order dt. 30.1.2001, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed W P No.39278/98 and allowed the petition filed by petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 in W P No.38173-80/98 and further ordered as follows:'The sale deeds in respect of Site Nos. 17 and 18 in favour of Bache Gowda and the subsequent purchasers are held null and void. The petitioner in the first petition shall demolish the building himself within three months. If he fails to do so within the stipulated period, the TMC shall take necessary steps in that regard and got the building demolished at the cost of the petitioner in the first writ petition and hand over possession of vacant sites to petitioners 4 and 5 in the connected writ petitions. In case he is willing to allow the building as it is and to be enjoyed by petitioners 4 and 5 in the connected writ petitions, i...
Smt S Jayashri Vs. S N Prasad S/O Subba Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. This petition is listed for admission.2. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, he has not entered appearance.3. Heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for final disposal.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view of the distance of 270 Kms from Bangalore to Madikeri and the petitioner is depending upon the income of her parents, it is inconvenient for her to attend the case at Madikeri and therefore, she prays for transfer of M.C.No.50/2010 pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn). Kodagu. at Madikeri to the Family Court at Bangalore.5. Respondent has not opposed the petition, in view of the above the petitioner is entitled to succeed.6. Keeping in view that the petitioner has no means and she is depending on the earnings of her parents and also appears to be suffering from depression and taking treatment at Bangalore, it is inconvenient for her to attend the case at Madikeri.7. In the result petition is allowed and t...
M H Chinnanna Gowda S/O Late Honne Gowda Vs. Gopinath S/O Channakeshav ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. This writ petition does not survive for consideration, since the petitioner filed WP 14140/09 questioning the impugned order and the same was allowed on 11.12.09 with a direction to the Court below that, the appeal should be disposed of within two months from date of receipt of a copy of the order.2. The petitioner ought to have brought to the notice of the Court when the said writ petition was disposed of, about the pendency of this writ petition and the records of the Court below having been called for in this writ petition which was earlier a civil revision petition.3. Certainly, there is lapse on the part of the petitioner. However, it is unnecessary for me to go into the contentious issue with regard to suppression.The writ petition stands disposed of as not surviving for consideration in view of the order dated 11.12.09 passed in WP 14140/09. The records of the Courts below, called for in CRP la 521/07 and later put up in this writ petition, be transmitted to the Court of...
N.Ganesh Rao, S/O.Sri.Narayana Rao, Vs. Smt.Anitha Bai, W/O.N.Ganesh R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Appellant is the petitioner before the court below, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-1-2008 made in M.C.No.580/2005 passed by the Family Court. Bangalore preferred this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner filed a petition against the respondent under Section 13(l)(i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for dissolution of the marriage which was solemnized on 3-5-1994. The petitioner has contended that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 3-5-1994 at Dharmasthala Temple. It was an arranged marriage, which has been conducted as per Hindu rituals and customs. After the marriage: both of them lived in Bangalore at Moodalapalya. Out of their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child on 3-9-1997. It is the case of the petitioner that right from the inception of their marriage, the respondent has been subjecting her with immense mental torture and cruelty and not taking care of her. Th...
Srinivasa @ Seena S/O Eregowda @ Thimmaiah Vs. State by Hassan Town Po ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. The petitioner in all these cases is common. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 2 in Crime No. 171/09 of Gorur P.S., Hassan District registered for an offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C.2. Petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 1 in Crime No. 173/09 of Gorur P.S., Hassan District and accused no.1 to Crime No.284/09 of Hassan Town P.S. for an offence punishable under Sec.392 l.P.C. Petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail.3. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader and I have been taken through investigation records.4. The investigation records would reveal that petitioner and other accused had snatched gold chains from different persons at different places for which the aforesaid crimes were registered. It is alleged that petitioner was riding a motorcycle and pillion rider was snatching gold chains from women walking in isolated places. The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the other accused have been released on bail.5. Hav...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »