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.
Mr. Eshwar M.H. S/O. Late Mallarisa Vs. Lakshmansa M.H. S/O. Late Mall ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. 3rd and 4th defendants filed I.A.4 in the suit to direct the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to deposit the rents that is being received by them from the tenants in occupation of item Nos. 2 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties. To the said application, the plaintiff has filed statement of objections, wherein he has denied that, he is in receipt of rent in respect of any item of plaint schedule properties. Alternatively, he has stated that, his father let out the premises prior to his death and he refers to lease and mortgage. However, he has maintained that, he is not in receipt of any rerate' income.2. Despite the said steno taken by the plaintiff, there being no prima facie material produced on record by the applicants, the Trial Court has allowed I.A.4 in part and has directed the defendant 1 and the plaintiff to deposit the rents collected from the date of suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this writ petition.3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused t...
Sriram Sudheer S/O.Sathyanarayana Badri Vs. the Passport Officer and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. Sri Kalyan Basavaraj. Learned Assistant Solicitor General takes notice for respondents. Heard.2. The petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner, on merits at an early date.3. The document at Annexure-E reveals that the petitioner has filed appeal questioning the impounding of petitioner's passport before the second respondent on 18.1.2010. According to the petitioner, not even a notice is issued to the petitioner relating to hearing of the appeal. Petitioner wants the appeal to be heard on merits at an early date, because of certain urgency.4. Respondent No.2 should have heard the appeal at an early date. Such matters should not be delayed. If the appeal is pot heard at an early date hardship will be caused to the petitioner. Hence, appeal filed by the petitioner on 18.1.2010 needs to be heard early. Hence, the following order made:-Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the appeal of...
Vajra Recreation Association and ors Vs. Superintendent of Police Dava ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
ORDER1. Learned Government Pleader files statement of objections on behalf of respondents along with Annexure R-1 to R-5. The same is taken on record.2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking direction to respondents 1 to 6 to restrain them from interfering with their lawful activities of first petitioner society.3. Brief facts leading to this petition are as under:First petitioner is a registered society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act registered for the purpose of creating and promoting sportive spirit among its members by providing facilities of playing indoor games, such a chess, carom, table tennis, card of rummy, jackpot, billiards etc. They also specifically say that no games of chance or events of public amusement are conducted in their premises. It is their case that on 16.9.2009 at about 4.30 p.m., 5th respondent along with respondents 3 and 4 conducted raid on the premises of 1st petitioner on false accusation that the members of 1sl petitioner society ...
Sri. M.G.Raghuram S/O Late Ganga and ors Vs. M/S, Hoyasala Building De ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
1. Petition is filed by the four Applica delete the name of 2nd petitioner in Co,P,No.91/09 and to insert the applicants' name as petitioner Nos.2 to 3.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator has no objection to the application. So also, learned counsel for petitioner No,2 has no objection to the application.3. Petitioner No.2 in Co.P.No.91/09 is neither & shareholder nor creditor nor worker o die Company in question, the 2nd petitioner in Co. f .No .91/09 had come forward to extend financial support to the 1st petitioner for the. Implementation of the scheme of arrangement. Now in the present application, the applicants who are the creditors of the Company in question want to come on record in place of the 2nd petitioner in Co.P,No,91/09, No prejudice will foe caused to the respondent if this application is allowed. The applicants being the creditors of the Company in question. are entitled to come on record in support of the scheme of arrangement,4. Accordingly-. CA ...
Sri. T.N.Mohan Kumara S/O Nanjunriaiali T G Vs. Sri Somashekar. G the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
ORDERJ.S.Khehar. C.J. (Oral)1. The instant contempt petition came to be filed, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 5.3.2010 passed by this Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 27337/2009.2. On issuance of notice, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of accused/respondent, appending therewith, an order bearing endorsement dated 11.10.2010 (Annexure-R.3).3. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner states, that in view of the passing of the order dated 11.10.2010 (Amiexure-R.3), the order passed by this Court on 5.3.2010 will be deemed to have been complied with.4. Accordingly, we are satisfied, that further proceedings against the accused/respondent is uncalled for. Rule issued to the accused/respondent is, accordingly, discharged.5. In case the complainant/petitioner desires to assail the order dated 11.10.2010 (Aanexure-R.3) and is so advised, it shall be open to the complainant/petitioner to assail the same, in accordance with law....
Sri Dhananjaya C M C/O Nanjaiah and ors Vs. Sri Nadadhura Secretary to ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
ORDERJ.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral)1. This Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 13519/2008 and Writ Petition Nos. 17632 and 17633/2008, by an order dated 23.2 2010, inter alia passed the following order."ORDERi) Writ petitions are hereby allowed.ii) The respondents are hereby directed to consider the proposal sent by the 5th respondent on 18.06.2008 as per Annexure-F keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and Another vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti and Another reported in AIR 2001 SC 2836 as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."The instant contempt petitions came to be fried alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in the aforesaid order dated 23.2.2010.3. On notice being issued to the accused/ respondents, counter affidavit has been filed. Enclosed with the counter affidavit, is an order bearing endorsement dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure-R. 1). ...
State of Karnataka, Vs. B.Muniyappa, S/O Late Narayanappa and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 11.08.2004 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in S.C.No.370/3002 acquitting the respondents of the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 504 and 302 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.2. It kitties case of the prosecution that, on 26.03.2002 at about 7.00 p m., all the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder of one Chikka Boodalappa of K.Guttahalli Village, Chintamani Taluk and in pursuance of the said common object, they held lethal weapons like clubs and thereafter, they have committed fianc under Sections 143, 147 and 148 r/w Sec.149 of IPC. It is further charged against the accused that on the said place, date and time being the members of the unlawful assembly, the accused went near the house of CW-1 Muniyamma and abused her in fcui language and committed criminal mtimidation to commit the murder of the deceased Chikka Boodalappa...
Mr. Ayaz Chowdary S/O Syed Basha Saheb Vs. State by Cottonpet Police S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the FIR registered by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.386/09 against the petitioner pending on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are several cases lodged by the complainant and those are all false cases. One case ended in an acquittal. The complainant is in the habit of lodging one complaint after another. This case is also filed with a modified intention in order to harass the accused. Therefore he seeks to quash the crime.4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in the complaint it is indicated that the petitioner assaulted the complainant by means of a club. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner.5. I have perused ...
Mr Gangadhar Shetty S/O. Narayana Rai Vs. Mr Krishnappa Poojary S/O. A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. Brief facts of the case are:That on 19-5-2000, when the claimant was moving with others, in a car bearing registration No.CNZ-4885 from Puttur towards Hassan, near Adole in Shirady village, lorry bearing registration No. KA-05-A-6398 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their car. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Puttur, seeking compensation of .75,000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of 7.19.700/- with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimant is in appeal seeking enhanc...
Air Marshal Partha Kumar Dev. Vs. Mr. Sathish Y Patil. S/O Y R Patil. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner/respondent No.1 in MC No.91/2010 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Challakere. Chitradurga. is before this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the case in MVC No.91/2010 pending, may be transferred to Principal Civil Judge/MACT at Bangalore, or any other competent Court at Bangalore.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the present petitioner and the respondent No.2/Insurance Com pony, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-towards personal injuries said to be sustained in the motor accident that occurred on 21 6.2010 near 1st Cross, 12th main road, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore. It is further submitted that in the complaint given by respondent No. 1 before the Police, he has specifically stated that he was a resident of Bangalore and he is doing business but the respondent No.1 has given false address and...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »