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.
Sri Rajkumar, S/O. Late Ramanna and ors. Vs. Smt. Kamalamma, W/O. Late ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in 0.5. No. 5238/1999 on the file of City Civii Court, Bangalore. The suit originally filed was for partition and separate possession as well as for a prayer that, the suit schedule item 'D' properties, which has been purported to be sold by a general power of attorney in favour of respondent No.3, was a fabricated and fictitious document and the sale transaction does not bind the plaintiffs.2. Defendant No.l - Ramanna was the husband of the 4th petitioner and father of petitioners 1 to 3. The petitioners contended that, defendant No.l had not executed any power of attorney in favour of respondent No.2 enabling him to alienate item No.2 of the suit property favour of respondent No.3. Defendant No.l -Ramanna, S/o.Late Sonnappa has died and as a result, the petitioners filed an application to delete the prayer as regains partition and confined the prayer in the suit only with regard to the challenge of alienation by respondent No.2 in favour of ...
Madashetty @ Beerashetty S/O Bellashetty Vs. the State of Kamataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.309/2010 registered for offences punishable under Section 384 of I.P.C., and also for offences punishable under Section 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Acc. 1963.2. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State who has opposed the bail application.3. As per the first information, on 13.09.2010 at about 6.00 p.m. When the first informant was in his land, one Rajashetty came and informed that the accused were cutting and removing the Sandalwood trees from the land of the first informant. Thereafter, the first informant and other persons came there. At that time, they saw the accused had cut the sandalwood trees and carrying the pieces of sandalwood. When the first informant and other persons questioned the accused, they assaulted them with the pieces of sandalwood and ran away from the place. Thereafter, the injuries suffered by them.4. Under Section 104 (d) (b) when the bail applicati...
Sheshappa @ Sheshappa GowdA. S/O Shankarappa Gowda Vs. the Assistant C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The grievance of the petitioner in this wilt petition is directed against the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Shimoga Sub-Division. Shimoga, vacating the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner in appeal R.A.No.9/10-11.2. Petitioner herein has filed the appeal R.A.No.9/10-11 under Section 49/136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964. before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Tahsildar. Thirthahalli in EVCCR No. 167/04-05. thereby directing eviction of the petitioner from the alleged encroachment made by him in Sy. No.8 of Marahalii village.3. The impugned order does not assign any reasons. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on 07.08.2010 the Assistant Commissioner granted interim order-till further orders staying the operation of the order passed by the Tahsildar challenged before him and adjourned the hearing. On 14.09.2010. as the Assistant Commissioner was ot...
Mr. Raghavendra S/O.Mr,raina Shetty Vs. State of Kamatak
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in Crime Ho.26/2010 registered for offences punishable under sections 342, 506, 376 and 306 of IPC by Gundlupet police, Charmarajanagar District,2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State and I have been taken through investigation records.3. As per the first information report an investigation records on 21.1.2010, when the victim had visited the grocery shop of petitioner (which is situate, opposite to the house of victim), petitioner dragged her inside his house, bolted the door and committed rape on her against her wish. The family members of the victim, in particular, the brother of victim was scared as Ms Sinter was not found in the house. The brother of the victim and other persons searched for her. At about 2.00 a.m., during the intervening night of 21/22.1.2010, victim was pushed out of the shop of petitioner. The victim revealed that petitioner had dragged her into his house and co...
Sri Kodappa Vs. Smt.Muniyamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. Respondent has filed O.S.77/2009 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, against the petitioner and 4 others for the relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner, who is the 4th defendant in the suit, has filed written statement contesting the suit claim. Issues having been framed, trial of the suit has commenced. Plaintiff has deposed as PW.l and when the suit was posted for her cross-examination, the petitioner filed I.A.2 under 0.6 R.17 CPC to amend the written statement and to incorporate the additional plea proposed as para 9(a). The application having been opposed, the Trial Court finding the objections to be sustainable, has passed the order dismissing I.A.2. Feeling aggrieved, the 5th defendant has filed this writ petition.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real question in controversy and by disallowing the application, the Trial Court has committed an irrational act.3. Learned counsel appe...
M.S.Radhamani, W/O.S.V.Bhattachar. Vs. Anil Kumar.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
Order.1. Heard on Misc.Cvl.7510/2009. This is an application filed by the appellants under Order XXXLX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for interim order of injunction restraining the respondent from making any construction or altering the nature of the property as seen in photograph in respect of the suit schedule premises.2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have succeeded partly in the suit by declaring that the Adoption Deed dated 18.12.1989 in favour of the defendant is void. But in so far as Gift Deed dated 20.05.2004, the appellants prayed for declaration that the deed is illegal, void and unenforceable, but the Trial Court has dismissed the suit in so far as that relief is concerned. He further submits that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has forcibly taken possession of the suit schedule premises and there is an apprehension that he would change the nature of the structure on the suit schedule property.3. The Respondent No.l has filed ob...
Vishwanath, S/O Ramu, Vs. Mallika Begum. and D. Syed Noorul Hassan S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
Order. 1. In an undeserving situation, taking into consideration the undertaking given to the Court by the learned Senior Advocate who appeared for the petitioner, a consent order was passed stipulating the period within which the defendant i.e., the petitioner herein, should adduce evidence and the trial Court to dispose of the matter.2. After giving a go by to the undertaking given to this Court, the petitioner has filed this Misc. W. application to re-schedule the dates.3. Heard the learned counsel.4. The reasons stated are that, firstly, the petitioner's advocate was out of Station between 9th to 16th September, 2010 and was not present in the Court to note down the events. Secondly, that he was not well till 21.10.10 and came to know about the petition being allowed on 22.9.10.5. The affidavit in support of the Misc. W. 9599/10, does not inspire the confidence of the Court. The petitioner has scuttled the progress of the suit.6. Despite the petitioner not showing bona fides, in th...
T. Gadigeppa S/O Late Nandyappa Aged About and T G Basavaraj S/O T. Ga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners have questioned the possession notice dated 31.7.2010 vide Annexure-C and the sale notice dated 6.10.2010 vide Annexure-D, both issued by 2nd respondent. The sale is proposed to be held on 20th November 2010.2. The notices impugned will have to be questioned before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In view of availability of alternative and efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal, this Court declines to entertain the writ petitions. It is open for the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within four weeks from this day.At this stage Sri. R. Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore will sit only on 23.11.2010, 24.11.2010 and 25.11.2010 and by that time the auction will be over. He further submits that the petitioners will deposit the entire arrears of money within three months from this day. Be that as it may, since it is open for the petitioners to approach the Debt Recov...
Sheshappa @ Sheshappa Gowda, S/O Shankarappa Gowda, Vs. the Assistant ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
ORDER.1. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub-Division, Shimoga, vacating the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner in appeal R.A.No.9/10-11.2. Petitioner herein has filed the appeal R.A.No.9/10-11 under Section 49/136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Tahsildar, Thirthahalli in E VCCR No. 167/04-05, thereby directing eviction of the petitioner from the alleged encroachment made by him in Sy. No.8 of Marahalii village.3. The impugned order does not assign any reasons. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on 07.08.2010 the Assistant Commissioner granted interim order till further orders staying the operation of the order passed by the Tahsildar challenged before him and adjourned the hearing. On 14.09.2010, as the Assistant Commissioner was ...
Sri H R Ananthakrishna Murthy, Adv. Vs. Sri Arun Verma Abeedm Enterpri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
1. Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the Addl.CMM, Bangalore in CC 26298/2002. 2. According to the complainant, he had lent a loan of Rs.30, 000/- to the accused for business purposes. In order to discharge liability, accused had issued a cheque on 28.2.2001 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Frazer Town Branch, Banga-ore. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds. A legal notice was caused on 4.9.2001 and thereafter, a case came to be filed for the alleged offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court, after inquiry, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused against which, the complainant is before this Court. 3. Heard the counsel representing the parties. The trial court opining that the complainant has suppressed the material facts and has relied upon a materially altered cheque and, accepting the defense of the accused and holding that the rebuttal evidence of the accused is reliable and trustworthy dismissed the com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »