Karnataka Court November 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.
Manonmani W/O Ponnuswamy and ors Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Sn Y.V.Parthasarathy, learned advocate takes notice on behalf of respondent No.l. 2. Petitioners have sought for quashing the notice issued by respondent No.l-bank to auction the property in question.3. The records reveal that respondents 3 to 5 are the Directors of respondent No.2-M/s.Beta Computers (P) Limited. They borrowed loan from the first respondent-bank. 6th respondent stood as a guarantor. Petitioners herein are the sons and daughters of the 6th respondent.4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that neither the petitioners are borrowers nor the guarantors; that the petitioners have also got share in the property, inasmuch as the suit filed by the petitioners for partition is decreed in O.S.No.995/2002; that the first respondent has colluded with respondents 3 to 5 in getting the sale proclamation issued against the property in question belonging to the petitioners. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have sought for quashing the tender notice for auctioni...
Sri Srinatha S/O Rudraswamy Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 1) and accused 2 to 4 were tried for an offence punishable under section 366 r/w 34 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 109 IPC. Accused 2 to 4 were acquitted of foretasted offences. Accused No.l was convicted for an offence punishable under section 366 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Therefore, accused No.l has filed this appeal.2. I have heard Sri K.S.N.Karanth. Learned counsel for accused No. 1 and Sri Vijaykumar Majage. Learned HCGP for3. In brief, the inter se relationship of some of the prosecution witnesses and the case of prosecution are as follows:- PWl-Rajaiah.C - the first informant is the father of PW2-Sharadamma (victim). PW4-Anitha and PW6-Radha were classmates of PW2. During the year 2000, PW2. PW4 & PW6 were studying in II year B.A. in I-Grade Col...
Sri Govindaram S/O.Labooram Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.309/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.2. Heard learn*id Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State and I have been taken through irrws ligation records.3. As per the investigation records, petitioner and other accused armed with deadly weapons were waiting to commit decoity near Veternary hospital, Mysore road at about 10.00 p.m., on 6.9.2010. The Investigating Officer apprehended them. From the possession of accused, a knife was recovered. Accused Nos.l and 3 against whom similar allegations are made are enlarged on ban.4. The learned Counsel for petitioner has made available certain documents to show that petitioner is a permanent resident of Hyderabad.5. Therefore, considering the mature of offences, punishment provided thereof and the absence of criminal antecedent, 1 am of the opinion that petitioner can be released on bail.6. In the result, I pass the fol...
Mahesh Shetty, S/O. Late Srinivas Shetty Vs. National Insurance Co., L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
:1. This cross objection by the claimant- Cross objector and the appeal by the Insurer are directed against the same judgment and award dated 20/08/2004 passed in MVC No. 1078/1999 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, D.K, Mangalore, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal' for short).2. The Tribunal by lt3 judgment and award, has awarded a sum of 76.92,000/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit as against the claim made by the claimant for a sum of 78.00.000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.3. In brief, the facts of the case are:The claimant was aged about 32 years, driver by profession and getting the income of 74,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That at about 3.30 p.m. on 16.1.1999 claimant was proceeding in his car bearing CNX 6494 from Mangalore to B.C. Road at KodikaJ. Padil. NH 48, at that time, the Jeep bearing No. ...
Sulaiab and Another. Vs. Smt. S.T.Shanthamma and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER:1. The instant Misc. CVL, is filed by the learned counsel for the appellants praying to recall the order dated 20.09.2010, in the interest of justice and equity.2. We hove heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for second respondent. 3. For the reasons stated in the affidavit sworn to by the learned counsel for the appellants and also by the appellants filed along with the application, the order dated 20.09.2010 is recalled and the matter is restored to its file for consideration on merits, subject to the condition that learned counsel for the appellants shall deposit the costs of Rs.250/- before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bangalore, within two days from today, failing which, the order dated 20.9.2010 shall stand restored, without any further orders. Accordingly the instant Misc.Cvl. is dispensed of....
Smt. Savithramma and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. These writ petitions are stale petitions hit by delay and laches. Petitioners claim interest in land measuring an extent of 5 acres 16 guntas in Sy No. 136 and 1 acre 22 guntas in Sy.No. 138/4 located in Kadugondanahalli Village of Kasaba ilobli Bangalore North Taluk. Such lands were subject matter for acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as "the BDA Act') in terms of preliminary notification issued under Section 17 (1) and (3) of the BDA Act, dated 29.05.1978, copy at Annexure-A to the petition and final notification tinder Section 19 (1) of the BDA Act, dated 28.04.1985, copy at Annexure-B to the petition.2. It is the case of the petitioners that BDA had passed a resolution on 30.07.1988. copy at Annexure-C to the petition, resolving to give up the subject lands belonging to the petitioners from the scope of acquisition for the reason that though awards had been passed in respect of these lands also, physi...
Sri Prabhakar Reddy S/O Bayanna Vs. Sri Sanjeeva Reddy President. Mpcs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner had been working as a Secretary of Gundlahalli Milk Producers Co-op. Society Ltd. Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District (tor short 'the Society'). He was suspended from the service of the Society as per the resolution dated 6.4.2008 pending enquiry. The said resolution was challenged by him under Section 70(2)(d) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 in Dispute No.2/08-09 before respondent No. 1O. Respondent No. 10 by his order at Annexure-F dated 15.12.2008 has set-aside the said resolution. Feeling aggrieved, the managing committee of the Society filed a revision petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal') in Revision Petition No. 100/08. The Tribunal by its order at Annexure-A has allowed the revision petition and set-aside the order passed by respondent No. 10 at Annexure-F. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in this writ petition.2. I have heard the learned counse...
Sri Anil Kumar Wadyar and ors. Vs. Sri Saarish S/O E.Mwarappa Gowda an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressed Commission. Bangalore, upholding the order passed by the District Forum which has directed them to pay the amounts mentioned therein.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the amount is to be paid by the company and not by the directors. Directors are not liable to satisfy the said claim. The same being purely a question of law, the Court has the jurisdiction and. therefore; the Writ Petition is to be entertained.3. The District Forum as well as the State Forum has held that there is a deficiency of service and has awarded compensation and the order is passed against the company and its directors.4. The question whether the directors are liable to pay the said amount or not, is a matter which they can agitate by way of a revision. This is net a case where this Court should entertain when the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy...
M/ S Graphite India Ltd. Vs. M/S Graphite India Ltd. Employees Union a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Challenge m the writ petition is to the order dated 04.11.2009 passed by The XXXI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City;-ejecting I .A.No.10 filed by the plaintiff. The said application was filed under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC to summon the records in O.S.No.124/2000.2. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, certain original documents had not been returned by the Court while returning the plaint in O.S.No, 124/2000 to present before the proper Court. The plaintiff having received the plaint copy had represented the same. It came to be numbered as O.S.No.498/2001 (present proceedings in the Trial Court). However, as ail the relevant papers had not been returned and as the plaintiff wanted the said documents for the purpose of leading his evidence, the present application was filed seeking to summon the documents* The Court below has dismissed the appection holding that the plaintiff has a right to take return of the Baid documents by making necessary application and therefo...
Chinnaswamy S/O Chinnum Vs. the Circle Inspector of Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under section-397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 4.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & Add!. JM^C, Ramanagararn in C.C. No.570/98 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and the order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ramanagararn in Criminal Appeal No.39/2002 confirming the order passed by the trial Court.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State, this matter is heard on merits.3. Though the records of the Courts below were celled, office has received the records of the appellate Court only. The records of the trial Court has net been received so far. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only in respect of legality of the sentence, in my view, the reco...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »