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.
Deepu @ Juttu Deepu and Umesha @ Pidsu Vs. the State by Kamakshipalya ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused No.4 and 5 in Crime No.573/2010 registered for an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the Stale.3. As per the first information given by injured-P.Shivu. on 2.9.2010 at about 12.00 noon when he was in his house in Agrahara Dasarahalli. Petitioners and other accused took the first informant from his house. They took him to industrial area at Rajajmagar and threatened him to reveal the name of the person who had committed the murder of brother of accused No. 1. When the first informant pleaded his ignorance, petitioners and other accused assaulted him with iron rods.As per the medical certificate made available by the learned Government Advocate, the injured Shivu had suffered abrasion on left fore arm. Swelling on left thigh and swelling on right fore arm. In the first information, the injured has not attributed any overtakes to these petitio...
Mahesh S/O Shankaracharya Vs. Smt Parima La W/O Mahesh and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29/8/2006 in C.Misc.No. 269/03 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Mysore.2. The Revision Petition is filed belatedly. There is a delay of 1080 days in filing. Misc.Cvl.22313/09 is filed seeking condensation. It is posted after notice to respondent.3. Heard Sri H. C. Shivaramu, learned advocate for petitioner.4. From the records available, it is noticed that the respondent herein filed a petition under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. in C.Misc.No.269/03 seeking maintenance from the petitioner herein on the ground of willful neglect, harassment and torture. The petition was resisted by the petitioner denying that he had neglected her or indulged in any act of harassment. On the other hand, the defense was that, she has on her own volition parted his company and lived in adultery with someone else.5. The Trial Court analyzing the evidence on record, held, the evidence rendered by the respondent-wife was in support of her allegation, whil...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Armugam and Kasi and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the M A C T, Bangalore in M V C No.7007/2004 on the following grounds:2. The vehicle in question though insured with the appellant covered with only an Act Policy and therefore inmates of the vehicle are not covered with the risk to compensate on account of their sustaining injury or death. Secondly the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to make good the compensation amount which aspects have not been considered by the claims tribunal.3. When the case called, the respondents remained absent.4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award and verified the records. Ex.Rl is the policy in respect of vehicle KA05 M 7788 Maruthi Omni with effect from 30.10.2003 to mid night 29.10.2004 and at the relevant column it is mentioned as liability only' which means it is an Act Policy. Therefore: the inmates of the veh...
Dayananda Salian Vs. Vijaya .S.Hegede and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
JUDGMEN TThis 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 9-11-06. When the claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20-J-8163 from Kunjal towards Brhamavar side, near Chanthar Krishi Kendra, car bearing registration No. KA-20-Z-5567 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motor cycle. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the MACT, Udupi. Seeking compensation of.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of .1,04,850/-with interest at 8% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimant ...
Sri S P Mahadevappa and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDERJ.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. The instant writ petition has been filed at the hands of the petitioners so as to assail the action of the respondents in acquiring 4 acres of land in 3y.No.405/2 in Madikeri town. It is the case of the petitioner, that the aforesaid land was sought to be acquired for construction of a Star Hotel, and to provide a bus stand, by the City Municipal Council, Madikeri.2. In order to repudiate the submission advanced at the hands of the petitioner, Mr.Basavaraj Kareddy. Learned Principal Government Advocate appearing for respondents Nos. I to 3 states, that the notification dated 3.5.2006 was a preliminary notification, having been issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further submitted; that a decision was taken at the level of the State Government, not to finally acquire the said land, for which reason, no final notification has yet been issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He also asserts, that in case, there ...
Sri C Shivaramaiah and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER 1. The petitioners only grievance is that the period of service rendered by them from the date of appointment till the date of approval of their appointment has not been considered for the purpose of leave, pension, seniority and other benefits and therefore the relief sought by the petitioners is to direct the respondents to reckon the services of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment up to the date of approval for the purposes of fixation of pay scale, seniority and other consequential benefits. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is covered by a decision of this court in W.P. No.24910/02 wherein This court had considered the aforesaid contentions put forward by the other petitioners and granted the relief by directing the respondents to consider the service rendered from the date of appointment till the date of approval for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, seniority and other consequential benefits. Learned counse...
Rural Police, ShimogA. Vs. Mujamil S/O Ismail and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.9.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Shimoga in S.C.No. 187/99. Acquitting accused Nos. 1 to 9 of the charges leveled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 448, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 114 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under: Marriage of PW. I-Shaheenaoanu took place with accused No. 1 about 3 years prior to 2.6.1997. From out of the said wed lock she gave birth to a female child. Thereafter accused No. 1 took second wife about 4 months prior to 2.G. 1997 and in view of the second marriage, accused No. 1 kept PW. 1 in a separate house and accused No.l along with his second wife-accused No.4 and his parents and other relates started subjecting PW. 1 to cruelty and harassment. On 2.6.1997, all the accused persons trespassed in to the house where PW. 1 was staying, with an intention to kill her and after trespassing into the house they poured ker...
M/S. Stump, Schuele Vs. Bangalore Water Supply and Assistant Executive ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the demand notice as well as the order passed by the appellate authority of the respondent-Board. By the impugned order, the respondents have demanded a sum of 3,68,72//-. Various contentions are raised in this writ petition, including the question of limitation and time barred claim.2. Since the matter has to go back to the appellate authority for fresh disposal, this Court does not wish to comment anything on merits of the matter at this stage. At an earlier point of time, this court had directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 120 of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964. Accordingly, the petitioner had approached the appellate authority by filing an appeal. The appellate authority his passed the impugned order as per Annexure-G, dated 23.2.2010, rejecting the appeal without assigning proper reasons.The impugned order at Annexure-G passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustaine...
Shameem, W/O Mohd Rafiq. Vs. Chand Begum and Police Inspector. State b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filed by one Ms. Shameem for a direction to respondent No.2 to produce respondent No. 1 and minor child before this Court and for a direction to respondent No.1 to hand ovel the petitioner's minor son Md. Sufiyan to the petitioner mother and for other consequential orders.2. The petitioner is not present before the Court. Whereas the first respondent- Ms. Chand Begum is present before the Court. She has brought the child Md. Sufiyan. It is brought to our notice that the petition filed by the petitioner in WPHC 53/2010 for the very same reliefs came to be disposed of by order dated 26.3.2010 in view of the order passed in WPHC 103/2006 where the parties were directed to work out their remedies in a Civil Court for custody of the child.3. The petitioner-mother is not showing any interest in prosecuting the petition. The child is before us and it is in the custody of respondent No. 1 who is none other than the sister of the petitioners husband. Therefore, it ...
D.Jayapal S/O Dhanapal Vs. State by Beml Nagar Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2010
1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.46/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 448, 323, 506 (B) r/w 34 I.PC. Accused no.l is the son of Accused no.2.2. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State and I have been taken through investigation records, which would reveal that the first accused namely Hariprasad and victim had fallen in love with each other. Their affair was a long drawn love affair. The first accused had assured the victim to marry her. The first accused by holding such assurances had intercourse with the victim. Later the petitioner (father of the accused) came to know about the same and he was looking for some other bride to perform the marriage of first accused and he was arranging to perform the marriage of the first accused. When the first informant-victim approached petitioner, he is alleged to have held out threats to her3. On consideration of the contents of the first informati...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »