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.
M/S. Grasim Indusiries Ltd. Vs. B.Roshan,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
1. This appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of XXXVI Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Crl.A.No.615/2008 dated 5.5.2009, in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused. While reversing the order passed by the XV Addl CMM, Bangalore, in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directing him to pay an amount of Rs.4.40,000/- as compensation, out of which, Rs.2.000/- was directed to be paid to the state.2. According to the complainant, accused being the proprietor of M/s.Roshan Enterprises is said to have purchased cement from the complainant company and towards payment of outstanding dues, issued three cheques, two cheques for Rs. 1.00.000/- each and another cheque for Rs. 1.82.000/- drawn on Canara Bank. Mysore main branch, which on presentation for encashment, came to be dishonored as funds insufficient and exceeds arrangement. Ultimately, after issuance of legal notice, the complaint came to be fil...
Sri H.R.Lingaswamy S/O Ramappa Vs. Sri Seenappa S/O Kenchappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
ORDER1. Respondent has filed O.S.284/07 against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Shimoga, in respect of the suit property for the relief of permanent injunction i.e., to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit property in favour of any third person. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, has filed written statement. Along with the suit, T.A.2 was filed seeking an order of temporary injunction from alienating the suit property in favour of any third person. Though statement of objections was filed to the application, the Trial Court finding merit in I.A.2, allowed the same and the petitioner was restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner till disposal of the suit. The appeal filed by the petitioner questioning the said order has been unsuccessful. Hence, the defendant has filed this writ petition questioning the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.2 and its affirmation by the appellate Court.2. The case of the petitioner is that...
Sri Muniyappa S/O Yarappa and Lakshmamma W/O Late L.S.Narayanaswamy an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
ORDER1. Combining different causes of action in a single petition and presenting one common petition while is not desirable, can cause unnecessary complications as if some petitions deserve to be dismissed and some deserve to be allowed, it can create confusion in respect A parties before the court whose cause of action is different and independent of the other petitioners. Filing a common petition is nothing short of misjoinder of parties. The registry should not entertain clubbing different causes of action which include several writ petitioners having different causes of action and having acquired rights through different modes.2. Therefore, while these writ petitions are dismissed. Liberty is reserved to these petitioners to present separate petitions indicating their causes separately.3. However, the registry is directed to entertain fresh petitions by these petitioners, by treating the court fee paid herein as the court fee on such fresh petitions and when presented, if the petit...
Dr M R Chowdry, 62 Yrs Vs. Ms R Geetha, 30 Yrs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
1. Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the XIII Addl.CMM, Bangalore in CC 30587/2002 dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Heard the counsel representing the parties.3. At the outset, learned coun.iel for the appellant has submitted that the matter was set down for arguments, he was late by half an hour to the court and by that time, already the counsel for the accused had addressed arguments He had requested the court to adjourn the matter and to give him an opportunity. But. to his surprise, the matter was disposed of. As such, he had no opportunity to address his arguments.4. In view of the submission made, after hearing the counsel for the respondent, without commenting on the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 8"' December, 2010. On that day or subsequently...
Sri G V Narayana Swamy S/O Venkatanarayanappa Sri Chikkavenkatappa S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
ORDER1. Combining different causes of action in a single petition and presenting one common petition while is. not desirable, can cause unnecessary complications as if some petitions deserve to be dismissed and some deserve to be allowed, it can create confusion in respect of parties before the court whose cause of action is different and independent of the other petitioners. Filing a common petition is nothing short of misjoinder of parties. The registry should not entertain clubbing different causes of action which include several writ petitioners having different causes of action and having acquired rights through different modes.2. Therefore, while these writ petitions are dismissed, liberty is reserved to these petitioners to present, separate petitions indicating their causes separately.3 However, the registry is directed to entertain fresh petitions by these petitioners, by treating the court fee paid herein as the court fee on such fresh petitions and when presented, if the pet...
M/S. Apoorva Roller Flour Mills Vs. Syndicate Bank Panambur Branch Pan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
ORDER1. The auction notification at Annexure-e, dated 21.10.2010 published in "Times of India", Daily Newspaper dated 23.10.2010, is called m question in this writ petition.2. The respondent-bank has notified the petitioner's property for auction on the ground that the petitioner has not. Repaid the amounts borrowed by it. The petitioner had borrowed certain sums of money from the respondent-bank by mortgaging the property in question. However, the amounts are not repaid to the bank. Ultimately, the auction notice is issued under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The auction is scheduled to be held on 22.11.2010.3. In view of the availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery of Tribunal under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, this Court declines to entertain this writ petition more particularly in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others in SLP{C)No.l014S/201Q, reported in (2010)8 SC...
Smt.Malathi K.G. W/O Gururaju Vs. Sri Ranganath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. J.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral) while disposing of Writ Petition No.3254/2008 vide older dated 27.2.2008, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-F dated 23.11.2007. It was also directed, that the aforesaid consideration should be finalized, within a period of2. In response to the notice issued in the instant contempt petitions, the accused/responded? Its filed a compliance affidavit dated 16.11.2010 enclosing therewith Annexure-R. 1, i.e., an order of the Government of Karnataka bearing endorsement dated 22.2.2010. It is submitted at the hands of the accused/respondents, that the order passed by this Court on 27.2.2008 was complied with, through the aforesaid ondoi-sement dated 22.2.2010. It is also pointed out, that the order dated 22.2.2010 could not be served upon the complainant/petitioner, on account of the absence of the complainant/petitioner from her last known address.3. Having perused the order...
Sri.Raghvendra S/O Late Ramadasappa Vs. State by Yeshwanthapura Railwa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is the husband of deceased Rajalakshmi. Their marriage was performed on 29.5.2005. Both of them were working as Teachers in a primary school. In the marriage they had a child. The petitioner developed illicit intimacy with an Assistant Teacher by name Pushpalatha - accused No.2. The petitioner did not mend his behavior in spite of repeated requests by the deceased and even after the intervention of elders of the deceased. The petitioner was also demanding the deceased to bring dowry.2. on 18.7.2010. The deceased laid on a railway track and a train ran over the deceased. Soon before the said incident, she had contacted her father and informed him that she is frustrated with her life and not interested to live further and she had left her 1 VI years child Jhansi @ Dhanyashri near Sri Chidananda Ashrama, Gubbi. This narration is found in the first information given by the father and sister of the3. The learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was ...
Sri Shivashankaraiah And Ors. Vs. Mysore Cements Employees' Associatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. WP 12725/2010 & WP 23242-245/2010 is filed by the badli workers challenging the order of the Labour Court, Bangalore on 25.1.2010 in Ref. 49/2007 - annexure A.2. WP 14586/2000 is filed by the management of Mysore Cements Ltd challenging the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court. Bangalore in Ref.26/2001 on 17.8.2006 - annexure J and to quash the same.3. WP 5185/2007 is filed by the badli workman who has accepted the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme and has reserved his right to challenge the award, seeking for extending the benefit from 1997 and tor all consequential monetary benefits as was given to other badlis who were regularized therein, by modification of the order dated 17.8.2006 in Ref. 26/2001 - anncxure A.4. In the first set of petitions, petitioners stating that they were refused employment with effect from 10.6 2007 have once again sought for reference The Labour. Court, on such reference, dismissed the claim of the petitioners stating that against...
V.Anandappa, S/O. Veerappa Vs. V.Shivaraju, S/O. V.Anandappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner married the 2nd respondent according to Hindu rites. They have not led a peaceful married life. Petitioner filed P'.C.No. 14/1980 on the file of Civil Judge, Chikamagalur, against the 2nd respondent under Section 13(l)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') 1955, seeking decree of divorce. The petition was dismissed on 24.09.1985 as not pressed. The 2nd respondent filed M.C.No.2/1988 under Section 9 of the Act. After trial, the petition was allowed and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed on 31.07.1989.2. The 1st respondent, a minor, has filed O.S.No.189/2004 through her mother and natural guardian, for passing a decree to pay maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. The petitioner/defendant has filed written statement inter alia contending that, plaintiff is not his son, is an orphan anc1 has been brought up by the 2nd respondent and he is not liable to pay the maintenance.3. Issues having been framea, trial has ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »