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.
Rayee Gowda S/O Marilakkegowda Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Sri Nagaraja N. Naidu, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri R.G.Kolle learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 5.2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed, that the present controversy is squarely covered With the judgment rendered by this Court in Golayya vs. The State of Karnataka and others, I.P.No.80817/2009(GM-MM-S), decided on 02.06.2009.3. In the light of the above learned counsel for the respondents states, that if the petitioner produces authentic material before respondent Nos. 2 to 12. Showing that royalty was paid in respect of the sand being transported (from a licensed quarry owner), from whom the petitioner had purchased the sand, the respondents would refund the royalty charged from the petitioner.4. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to produce material before the concerned respondent Nos. 2 to 12, depicting that royally had already been paid by the licensed quarry owner, on the sand which was purchased by the petitioner....
Sri S.M.Rakesh, S/O. Late Muniyappa, Vs. M/S. Srinath and Company
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Respondent / plaintiff has filed O.S.5964/09 against the petitioner / defendant seeking decree of ejectment in respect of the plaint schedule premises, damages, mesne profits and consequential reliefs. The suit was contested by filing written statement. Respondent filed I.A.2 dated 15.3.10 to direct the petitioner to pay the admitted arrears from 1.5.09 to 30.3.10 to which, the petitioner filed statement of objections. The Trial Court has passed an order dated 13.7.10 whereby it has allowed I.A.2 and has directed the petitioner to pay arrears of rent / damages of 7,70,000/- due for the period from 1.5.09 to 30.6.10 at 55,000/- per month and continue to pay every month 55,000/-. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed this writ petition.2. Keeping it view the mandate of 5.89 CPC, an attempt was made to find out the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. Learned counsel appearing on both sides, showed interest in settlement of the matter and had conferences with th...
Ms. Deeksha D/O Seetharama Vs. Seetharama Shetty S/O Devappa Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner has sought for the following relief:-"Wherefore the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to obey the order passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangalore, D.K. in MC.No.64/2008 filed as Annexure-A to this Writ Petition and for such other Writ or order on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice"Such a relief cannot be granted in the writ petition. If the first respondent has not obeyed the order passed in MC.No.64/2008, it is open for the petitioner to initiate action in accordance with law to execute the order.2. It is brought to the notice of the Court by Sri Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already taken steps to execute the order granting maintenance. In spite of issuing arrest warrant, etc., the first respondent is evading of the legal process.If respondent No.1 is evading process of law, it is op...
V.J.Hariprasad, S/O K.Janarjdkana Ballai Vs. K.Gopalakrishna Bhat and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 20.11.2009 in O.S.No.229/2008 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) at Bantwal allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 151 CPC to direct the jurisdictional police to implement the order of temporary injunction.2. Respondents filed O.S.No.229/2008 against the petitioner for permanent injunction. On I.A.I the Trial Court vide order dated 30.1.2009 granted an order o< temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondents' possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, petitioner filed an appeal in M.A.No.2/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Bantwal. The Lower Appellate Court after hearing both the parties, reserved judgment in M.A.2/2009. In the meanwhile, respondent filed I.A.2 in O.S.No.229/2008 to direct the jurisdictional police implement the order of temporary-injunction passed by the Trial Court. After hearing both...
M/S. Vaishnavi Enterprises and ors Vs. Vijaya Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The possession notice issued by the respondent-Bank to the petitioners dated 5.10.2010 vide Annexure-'F' is called in question in this writ petition.2. The records reveal that the petitioners 1 to 3 have borrowed a sum of 7 crores from the respondent-Bank for purchase of industrial land and for construction of industrial shed at Peenya industrial area. The 4th petitioner is a guarantor for the said loan transaction. However, the petitioners defaulted in repaying the loan amount. As on 21.7.2009, the total amount due was 7,45,58,479/-. However, the dues as on 9.2010 are 67,56,471/-. Thereafter, the petitioners have remitted certain amounts. Thus, the total amounts due as on 15.10.2010 is 8,28,77,409/- interest. At an earlier point of time, petitioners had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.No.691/2009. During the course of hearing the appeal, petitioners' counsel hied a memo seeking one year time for the payment of entire amount. The said memo was opposed by the...
Sri N Pratap Simha Vs. Sri R Satyaji Raja (Major) and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. Though, the interim direction issued by this Court on 26.9.2005 required M/s B S.Refrigerators Ltd. to release payment, within a period of eight weeks to the workmen, under the provisions of Sec.25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, the said payment was never released. Thereafter, even though, time granted to J M/s.B.S.Refrigerators to make aforesaid payment was extended, the same never came to be released to the workmen. It is the instant inaction at the hands of M/s B.S.Refrigerators Ltd. that prompted the workers union to approach this Court by filing the instant contempt petition.2. During the course of hearing, we came to be informed, that in the first instance, proceedings were initiated in connection with M/s.B.S.Refrigerators Ltd. before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in the year 2003. With the initiation of the aforesaid proceedings no recovery could have been made by the workers from M/s.B.S.Refrigerators.3. Subsequ...
State Through Amruthur Police. Vs. Gangaiah @ Raja @ Palli and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 18.10.2004 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Tumkur District in S.C.No.27/2002 acquitting the respondents of the offence U/s 143. 147. 148 and 302 r/w Section 149 IPC.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and Accused No.5 along with the deceased A-4 on 5.4.2001 at about 8.30 pm in Hulivana village formed themselves into an unlawful assembly for the purpose of murdering the deceased- Nanjewgowda @ Raju @ Bullaiahna Raju and by themselves forming into an unlawful assembly, they have caused the murder of the deceased by assaulting him with axe and choppers on his head, neck and back, thereby they are alleged to have committed the offences of rioting and murder punishable U/s. 143. 148 and 302 r/w. Sec. 149 IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 26 witnesses and got marked Ex.PI to Ex.P25(a) and produced MOl to MOl 1. The defense of the accused was one of total denial. They hav...
Mallesh S/O Javaraiah Vs. State by Arakalgudu Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is alleged to have attempted on the life of Ravi by mixing poison in the liquor offered to him. The said Ravi on consumption of liquor was taken to hospital. The investigation records would reveal that medical officer, on examination of said Ravi opined that it was a case of poisoning. The first information was lodged after a period of 13 days. A crime was registered for an offence under Section 307 of IPC.2. The learned Counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:i) There was delay of 13 days in lodging first informationii) As per averments of first information, accused and said Ravi were together on the date of occurrence from morning till evening. They had together consumed liquor. The said Ravi returned home and started vomiting. Thereafter, it was suspected that he had consumed poison. In the circumstances, there is no prima facie case against petitioner, iii) The petitioner had no motive to administer poison to said Ravi.There was delay in lodging...
Sri Syed Pasha Mohideen Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Land measuring 14 acres and 24 guntas in Sy.No.20 of Konanakunte Village, amongst large tracts of land, though, notified for acquisition by the respondent-BDA for forming a layout known as "Banashankari V Stage", however, lands in Sy.No.18, 19 & 21 of Konanakunte Village abutting the land in question, acquisition was neither completed by passing awards nor layout formed therein. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents-PDA, since the said A and B were fully developed, while m respect of some acquisitions were quashed by orders of this Court, the layout could not be formed therein.2. According to the respondents-BDA, 14 acres and 24 guntas in Sy.No.20 of Konanakunte Village, eoirtprises of:-(1) Open area measuring 1 acre 5 guntas/1,2) Revenue roads measure in excess of 1 acre 35 guntas;(3) Proposed road to be formed by the BDA measures 0.05 guntas;(4) Existing buildings with compound measures 6 acres 19 guntas; and(5) Denitrified land measures 5 acreB.3. Thus, what r...
Sri Nisar Ahmed S/O Jaffep Sherief and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDERJ.S.KHEHAR. C.J. (Oral):1. No.3. Sri R. Kothwal. Learned counsel appears for respondent2. During the course of hearing, after submissions were advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 made a categories automation, that children coming to the premises in question are not being imparted any education whatsoever, as the activity carried out by respondent No.3 in the premises is in the nature of a play-school and no teaching activity is being carried out in the premises. He also undertakes on behalf of respondent No.3, that at no point in time any such teaching activity will be carried out without the express approval of the competent authority, not even at the kinder garden level.3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.3, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press the instant writ petition any further.Dismissed as not pressed. Needless to mention, that respondent No...
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »