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.
M/S. Abexome Biosciences Private Limited Vs. Bangalore Electricity Sup ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. Sri N.K. Gupta learned Counsel is directed to take notice for the respondent No. 1. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the provisional assessment at Annexure-A dated 26.08.2010 issued by the 1st respondent, whereby he was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.7.21,637/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. The petitioner has filed objections to the provisional assessment as per Annexure-G. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was a threat of disconnection of power supply, the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount demanded in the provisional assessment order. The Assessing Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer, (Ele.), Peenya, Bangalore, has to consider the objections filed by the petitioner, provide an opportunity of being heard as per Sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and pass an appropriate...
Fathima Khanam. W/O.Kaleel Ahmed @ Syed Khaleel. Vs. Syed Khaleel @ Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner/wife of the respondent is before this Court under Section 24 of CPC praying to transfer the case in Old O.S.No.5/2009 (New No.231/2009) pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Hunsur to Family Court at Mysore.2. In spite of service of notice, respondent has not entered appearance.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of Family Court at Mysore with her parents and she has filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC, (registered in C.Mis. 186/2009) and the same is pending on the file of Family Court at Mysore. But her husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hunsur and the petitioner being a pardanashin lady, it is not convenient for her to attend Court at Hunsur. There is justification for the petitioner in seeking transfer of the suit in O.S.No.231/2009 from the Court at Hunsur to Family Court at Mysore.4. In the result, the petition ...
State by Jog Police Station Vs. G G Bhatta S/O Gajanana Bhatta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This Crl.A.No. 1310/2005 is filed by the State, the complainant in CC.No.476/1997 on the file of the learned .JFMC, Sagar (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court' for short). The State has challenged in this appeal the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2005 passed in the said C.C.No.476/1997 acquitting the accused therein (respondent herein) of the offences under Sections 408 and 477A IPC.2. Stated in brief the case of the prosecution as could be seen from the charge framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 408 and 477A of IPC is as under:(i) The accused, who was working as Cashier in the office of Karnataka Power Corporation, Jog Division at Jog during the period from 18.07.1995 to 05.12.1996, was entrusted with the cash pertaining to the said office and, on 16.02.1995 when I.Kashinath, the Accounts Officer in the said office (CW2-PW2) checked the cash and cash book, it was found that the accused had misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,3...
Gangadhara S/O Manjappa Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the injured when he demanded the injured to pay tiller hire charges. It is alleged in the first information that the accused had taken the complainant to an isolated place at 8.30 p.m., on 13.7.2010 and assaulted him and tried to squeeze his neck. The Investigating Officer has registered a crime for an offence punishable under Sec.307 I.P.C.2. The copy of wound certificate produced by the learned Government Advocate shows simple injuries viz abrasions on the left side of the neck. At this stage, there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. Therefore, 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 pass the following:ORDERPetition is accepted. Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, subject to following conditions:1) If the petitioner is arrested in Crime No. 155/10 of...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Rudolph D.Almeida
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. Respondent no.3 in MVC 1250/00 on the file of Addl Civil Judge, Sr.Dvn., MACT - V, Mangalore is the appellant2. Parties will be referred according to their ranking found in the Court below.3. Learned Advocate for respondent no.3 contends that on 16.12.1999 the claimant is said to have sustained injuries in a motor vehicles accident. Claimant died on 12.7.2000. It is contended that from the date of the accident till death, claimant was in coma. So, the claim by the legal representatives of the claimant cannot be considered as a case of personal injury, it should be considered as a fatal accident case.If, such method is adopted, the award of compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000/- by the tribunal under the head of pain and suffering do not arise.- Secondly, claimant is said to hove been working as a spray painter, drawing a salary of Rs. 10.000/- but the witness summons taken to die witness to prove the salary certificate has not attended the court So, it is rejected by the learned trial...
Ms. Shruthi. C D/O. C. Rameshbabu Vs. the Vice Chancellor Bangalore Un ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner was admitted to the 3rd respondent college for the study of MBA Course for the academic session 2009-2010. The statement of admission (Annexure-C) was sent by the 3rJ respondent to the Registrar of Bangalore University for its approval. The 2nd respondent has refused to approve the admission of the petitioner on the ground that she has not secured 50% of the marks in the qualifying examination. Intimation sent by the 2nd respondent- University to the 3rd respondent-College is at Annexure-D. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this v. Tit petition seeking the following relief:Wherefore, the petitioner herein most respectfully prays that this Honble Court be pleased to direct the respondents-I and 2 to approve the admission of the petitioner for the MBA Course through the 3rd respondent for the year 2009-2010 and permit her to with her examinations in the respective semesters commencing from 13.1.2010 and also be pleased to award the cost of this petitioner...
Sri. Uddaiah @ Udayakumar S/O. Huchaiah Vs. the Branch Manager, United ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.3. Brief facts of the case are:That on 26.07.2006 when the claimant was proceeding along with others towards Mallapura on tankbund of Pandithanahalli a tractor-tailor bearing registration No.KA-46, T-0163-0164 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant as a result he sustained grievous injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition before MACT, Hassan seeking compensation of 3.00.000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1.55.000/- with interest at 6o/o p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of the accident, negligence and liability of the Insurer of the offending vehicle the only point that remains for consideration is:Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?5. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for t...
The State of Karnataka and ors Vs. Abdul Kareem S/O Late Abdul Khayam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. I We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. For the reasons indicated in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that 105 days delay in filing the instant writ appeal deserves to be condoned. LA-iI/07 is therefore allowed, and delay is accordingly condoned.2. The appellants have assailed, through the instant writ appeal, the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 15.2.2007 while disposing of W.P.No.52080/2003. By the aforesaid order dated 15.02.2007, the appellants were directed to consider the claim of respondent No. 1 herein for appointment of compassionate grounds.3. While disposing of W.P.No.52080/2003. a direction had been issued to the appellants herein to consider the claim of the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is the sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the claim of appointments on compassionate grounds are regulated by the provisions of the Kar...
Devi Prakash, R. Hegde, S/O. Late R. Hegde Vs. Rathnakar MelantA. S/O. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
1. This appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of dismissal of the complaint by acquitting the accused for non prosecution dated 5.3.2009 passed in CC No.iS79/2005 by the JMFC V Court, Mangalore.2. Heard.3. According to the complainant, the accused was due to the complainant a sum of Rs.20.000/- and towards the same, cheque was issued and on presentation of the same, it was dishonored for stop payment'. After issuance of legal notice, complaint came to be filed. On perusal of the record, it appears complaint was filed during 2005. Matter was pending since then before the Trial Court. Hence, the case was dismissed for default. Against which, the complainant is before this Court.4. According to the counsel appearing for the complainant, he has missed the entry in the diary and was the cause for his non-appearance and could not follow up the matter.5. According to the counsel appearing for the accused, though the complainant WSK said that the accused deliberately avoided summons...
Sri.Munna S/O Sardar Sab Vs. State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused No. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 137/2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506(B). 323, 326 r/w 34 I.P.C. It is alleged in the first information that, on 13.9.2010 at about 9.30 a.m. the accused No.1 and 2 trespassed into the house of injured and picked up quarrel in relation to some monitory transactions. Accused No.1 assaulted on the face of the injured with an iron rod, which resulted in loss of 10 teeth. The petitioners have sought for Anticipatory Bail.2. At this stage of the case, there are no reasons to suspect the contents of first information. The first informant has not attributed any overt-acts to accused No.2 that he had assaulted him.ORDERPetition so far as it relates to petitioner No.1 is rejected. Petition as far as it relates to petitioner No.2 is accepted. He is granted anticipatory bail, subject to following conditions:1) If the petitioner No.2 is arrested in Crime No. 137/2010 of Vijayapura police, he s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »