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.
Channakrishnappa S/O ChinnanrasappA. Vs. Venkataswamappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. 5th respondent has filed O.S.2853/1987 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for the relief of partition and separate possession against the petitioner, respondents 1 to 4 and 6/defendants. The petitioner is the 5th defendant in the suit and has filed written statement. Trial of the suit has taken place. After the case was posted for hearing of arguments on the main suit, I.As.15 and 16 were filed by the petitioner to reopen the case and to issue witness summons to the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk for deposing in the matter. The applications were opposed by respondent 1(c), 4 and 6 by filing statement of objections on 22.9.2010. The Trial Court by an order dated 22.9.2010 has dismissed the applications. Questioning the said order, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Sr.counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shankaralingappa Nagaraj for creators/respondents 2 and 3(c) and perused the writ petitions papers.3. Subsequent to the passi...
Sri C. Jayachandra, S/O Changaiah Vs. the Bangalore Electricity Supply ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. Sri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel is directed to take notice for the respondents.2. On 4.10.2010. this Court in W.P.No.30641/2010 had granted time to the petitioner to deposit a 3um of Rs.4 lakh with the second respondent on or before 8.11.2010 and balance of Rs.3,50,000/- on or before 6.12.2010 towards balance of back billing charges as agreed by the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not deposit Rs.4 lakhs as per the said order on or before 8.11.2010 due to certain unavoidable circumstances. The respondents have disconnected power supply on 9.11.2010 since the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount in terms of the said order. He submits that the petitioner may be granted time till 6.12.2010 to pay the balance of back billing charges.4. On the other hand. Sri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed giant of further time to the petitioner to deposit the amount. He further submits that sufficient ti...
Sri.Krishnappa @ Kittappa Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal is by the accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolar. in EACC No. 16/2010, dated 03.07.2010 in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.31,804/- to the Asst. Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Mulbagal Sub-division, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. As per the prosecution, on 20.4.2009 around 11.00 a.m. the Asst. Executive Engineer of the Vigilance Cell of BESCOM, Kolar Division along with his staff, inspected the electric installation bearing RR No.IP 575 belonging to accused No.2 Akkayyamma and accused No.l-Krishnappa is said to have obtained electricity connection illegally for the bore we 11 by fixing 3 HP electric motor to lift water for sand filtering work and committed theft of 4028 units of electricity and caused loss to the tune of Rs.29,804/- as back billing charges and Rs. 12.00...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The Substantial question of law in this appeal is as under:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that an appeal was maintainable u/s.248 of the Act, even though there was no adjudication by the Authorities under the Act in accordance with Section 195(3), (4) & (5) read with Section 200 of the Act2. The substantial question of law arising in this appeal is held against the Revenue in ITA No. 1/2008 based on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax and others V/s. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., & Ors., ( 2010) 320 ITR 209. By virtue of the said decision it was held that the appeal filed under section 248 of the Income Tax Act is maintainable and therefore the appeal filed by the assesses under section 248 of the Act is maintainable and held against the Revenue. In view of the same, substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is answered against the Revenue.3. Consequently confirming the order of the Tribunal we direct the appeal filed before the CIT (Appeals) be d...
Vcnkatappa, Vs. the Divisional Manager
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. Although the matter is listed under the orders list, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.2. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.4. Brief facts of the case are:That on 03.03.2007 when the claimant aged about 60 years was crossing KH road in front of KSRTC office all of a sudden a car bearing registration No. KA-01-MA-l 134 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition before MACT, Mangalore seeking compensation of 3,00,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,08.000/- with interest at 6% p.a.5. 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 ...
The Special Land Acquistion Officer Mysore Vs. Sri Thotappa Mayor S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. Revision by the Slate is directed against the order dated 25.08.2009 in Lac.96/2001 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mysore allowing the application of the respondent under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act and directing the petitioner herein to submit reference for adjudication within 30 days thereof.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Land Acquisition Officer contends that the order impugned is unsustainable as it is against this mandate of Section 18 of the Act which prescribes period of 90 days for application to be filed for making reference. In support of his contention, he refers to certain facts. The land of the respondent bearing Survey No.65/1 to an extent of 0.32 guntas and land in Survey No.66 to an extent of 37 V2 guntas of Nandanahalligrama, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore was compulsorily acquired by the State. Award in this regard was passed determining compensation payable. The amount under the award was received by the respondent on 2...
Mr.A.K.Hyder, and ors. Vs. Mr.Abdul Khader and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. The appellant is the plaintiff before the Trial Court in a suit for injunction. The suit was resisted on the ground that there was no interference with the suit property and that the suit having been filed without indicating the boundaries of the suit property, no relief could have been granted. The Trial Court agreed with this defense taken by the defendant and directed that the plaintiff may have the property surveyed and the boundaries fixed. This having been carried in an appeal the lower appellate court has refused to interfere and has held that there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. It is this judgment which is sought to be questioned in this second appeal.2. The substantial question of law that is sought to be framed in this appeal is as follows, the trial court having directed the parties to get the boundaries of their respective properties fixed, the court ought to have given appropriate directions for fixation of the boundaries of the plaintif...
Sri R.T. Basavaraj, S/O Thukarama Rao.R and ors. Vs. Pragathi GramIn B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. Though these petitions are listed in preliminary hearing 'B' group, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are disposed of finally.2. The petitioners were among several candidates who were eligible for taking up the written test to be conducted for the post of Officer Scale-I from Cierk-cum-Cashier post. R-l Pragathi Gramma Bank into which Chitradurga Gramina Bank came to be amalgamated, issued a notification dated 18.2.2G10 (Annexure-A) intimating the eligible candidates about the date of written test and the venue. As per the said notification, the petitioners, being the employees working at the Chitradurga Gramina Bank were to take the examination at S../.M. Institute of Technology, N.H.4 Bypass, Chitradi.rga, and in all 229 candidates were to take the written test at the said centre.3. It is the case of the petitioners that they, along with 200 other Clerks-cum-Cashiers presented themselves at the S.J.M. Institute of Technology to take up the written ...
Karnataka Soaps and Detergent Ltd. Vs. M/S.Sri Mahalakshmi Traders and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
1. This appeal is filed against the order of the I3,h Addl. CMM, Bangalore, in C.C.No. 16743/1997 dated 26.08.2008.2. According to the appellant-complainant, they are the manufacturers of soaps, detergent cakes, detergent powder etc., and the respondents-accused persons are the distributors of the said products and as against the products supplied by the complainant, accused persons were required to make payment of Rs.4,29,852.37 and accordingly, issued a cheque for the said amount drawn on Vijaya Bank, Brahmavar Branch, which on presentation, was dishonored with an endorsement 'exceeds arrangement". Thereafter, the accused persons requested for representation of the cheque and even on such presentation, the cheque was not honored. Hence, after issuance of legal notice for non-payment, the complaint was filed. The trial Court, after enquiry, has dismissed the complaint holding that the offence is not made out. Hence this appeal.3. Heard.4. According to the complainant, the cheque issue...
Prakash S/ O. Channabasavaiah and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused No. 1, 3 and 4 in Crime No.346/2010 registered for an offence punishable under Section 379 of lPC by Alur police, Hassan District.2. During the intervening night of 28/29.8.2010, petitioners and other accused are alleged to have committee, d the theft of one jersey cow and two she buffaloes from the cattle shed of first informant. On the following day. First information was bolged and accused Nos.2 and 5 were arrested and on the information volunteered by them, stolen cow and two she buffaloes were recovered. The petitioners do not bear any criminal antecedents.3. In the circumstances, without going into further details, a direction sought for is granted for a limited period to enable petitioners to seek regular bail before the trial Court.4. In the result, I pass the following order:Petition is accepted. Petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, subject to following conditions:1) If petitioners/accused Nos.l, 3 and 4 are arrested in Crim...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »