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.
Jayanth. and M.A. Raja @ Rippan Raja and ors Vs. the State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. These two appeals arise out of and are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Hassan in Sessions Case No.72/1998 dated 22-12-2004 wherein accused Nos. 1,4 & 5 have been convicted of having committed the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149, Sections 201 & 396 r/w Section J 49 IPC and accused Nos 1,4 & 5 are sentenced as follows: (1) Accused Nos.1. 4 and 5 are convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and each one of them are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months. (2) Accused Nos. 1,4 and 5 are further convicted for the offence under Section 396 read with Section 149 IPC and are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for three months. (3) Accused Nos. 1,4 and 5 are hereby convicted for the offence unde...
Sri Maligegowda Vs. Sri Kanpegowda and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by Uie Tribunal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.3. The brief facts of the case:On 27.04.2005, when the claimant was travelling as & pillion rider in the bike bearing regtetrsion No.MEC-2589 near Gadenahalli cross beside B.M.Road, a tempo bearing registration No. KA-13-3511 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their bike. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, Hassan seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.66.660/- with interest at 6% p.a.4. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasona...
The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Nir ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal was filed questioning an award passed by a Reference Court. The appeal was filed on 13.4.09 with a nominal Court fee. During scrutiny, the Registry noticed the defects in filing of the appeal including the non payment of the prescribed amount of the Court fee vis-a-vis the valuation of the appeal.2. The appeal having been listed for non-compliance of the office objections, a peremptory order was passed on 2.9.09, emitting the appellant to comply with the office objections within one week by depositing cost of Rs. 1,000/- in Bangalore Mediation Centre. The office objections having not been complied with within the time allowed, the order took effect and as a result, the appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution.3. Seeking setting aide of the said order and to restore the appeal, Misc. Cvl.16520/09 was filed. A perusal of the said misc. application, more particularly, the contents of Para 5 of the affidavit enclosed to the application, prima facie indicated the derogatory...
Mr.Chandra @ Chandrashekar Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.220/ 2010 registered for an offence punishable under Section 399 of IPC by Kadur police.2. The petitioner and other accused armed with deadly weapons were making preparations to commit decoity at 1.30 a.m. on 26.7.2010. On receipt of credible information, the Investigation Officer reached the place of occurrence and apprehended petitioner and an iron rod was recovered from possession of petitioner,3. The petitioner is in judicial custody. The investigation is completed. The petitioner does not bear any criminal antecedents, Therefore,, having regard to nature of allegations made against petitioner and punishment provided thereon and the antecedents of petitioner, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be granted bail,4. In the result, I pass the following order: Petition is accepted. Petitioner is released on bail, subject to following conditions:1) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and offer a surety...
Sri.B.V.RajuborA. Vs. Smt.Rekha Bora,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Appellant is the petitioner before the court below, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-5-2007 made in M.C.No 21/2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Additional CJM, at Arsikere filed this appeal.2. The petitioner filed a petition before the court below seeking for dissolution of their marriage which was solemnized on 14-4-2000 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. The petitioner in the petition contended that the respondent is his legally wedded wife and their marriage was solemnized on 14-4-2000 at Dharmasthala Temple as per the wishes of the elders. The respondent entered the marital house along with her two year old female child, which was born to her from the divorced husband. The petitioner has contended that initially he had married to one Santhosh Kumari on 24-6-J. 988 and begot two children by name Lavleshkumar and Sanjeevkumari. Unfortunately, when the two children are 10 and 8 years old, Santhoshkumari died on 10-2-2000 leaving behind the p...
Sri.V.C.Suresh. S/O Late V.T.Chandra Naik Vs. Sri.Range GowdA. S/O Nan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The appellant in RFA.No.438/2001, who is also an unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.5/1994, has preferred this review petition seeking review of the judgment passed by this court on 25.7.2006. The review petition is filed along with Misc.Cvl.No. 1964/2009 seeking condonation of delay of 888 days in filing the review petition.2. Heard the Senior Counsel Sri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad appearing for the review petitioner in respect of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. The case of the petitioner is that though the appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 25.7.2006 the entire file pertaining to the case was not handed over to review petitioner by the counsel appearing for him in the said appeal, for the reason that his colleague Srinivas had lost the entire file, as such he had to rebuild the entire records through certified copies, in the process there is a delay of about 888 days.4. To the said application l-sl respondent has filed his objections by way of af...
S.N. Yellappa Vs. J.S. Sathyanarayana Rao and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Heard the learned council for the appellant and the respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant was the defendant before the trial court. The suit was filed by the respondents for the relief of declaration that a residential site bearing No.1 culled out of survey No. 16/6 of Mulkere Village, now known as Gandhinagara, as shown and described in the layout plan issued by the planning authority, Shimoga-Bhadravathi Planning area, Shimoga did not exist and it is a concoction and tampering of original alienation records in place of the suit schedule site of the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the said property.It was alleged that the suit land originally belonged to A one Anjanappa, son of Narasappa and the defendant had purchased an extent of 1 acre out of the said land under a registered sale deed dated 08.06.1991 and was in possession and enjoyment of the same, which was later formed into houses sites ...
Smt Lakshmishambhavi Vs. Sri Anantha Padmanabha Nayak and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,2. Heard.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. The brief facts of the case:On 9/4/2001, when the claimant along with others was travelling in a Maruti Omni car- bearing registration No. KA-09-M-5437 near Kaup-Polipu Masjid, a tanker bearing registration No. KA-19-A-3651 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Maruti Omni. As & result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, she fitted a cteim petition before the MACT, Udupi. Seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/. The Tribunal awarded her a compensation of Rs.79,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a.5. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident, negligence and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is call for enhancement?""Whether the compensation awarded by the...
G Puttaiah Vs. Smt. Ningainma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER 1. The petitioner in the above petition has sought for setting aside the order dt. 24-6-09 passed in Crl.RP.No, 143/08 by the Fast Track Court-IV. Mandya. and the order dt. 26-8-08 passed in C.Misc.No.20/08 by the JMFC, Malavalli. 2. Facts leading to the case are: The first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Smt.Mahadevamma, Smt.Shanthamma and Kumari Kalpana, the second respondent herein are the legitimate daughters of the petitioner and the first respondent. The respondents i.e. the wife and third daughter of the petitioner filed a petition in C.Misc. 20/08 against the petitioner for enhancement of maintenance awarded in their favour in C.Misc. No.55/06. The JMFC. Malavalli. by order dt. 26-8-08 allowed their petition and enhanced the maintenance. Petitioner aggrieved by the order of JMFC, challenged the same in Crl.P.No. 143/08 before the Fast Track Court. Mandya and the same was dismissed as per order dt. 24-6-09. challenging these two orders, petitioner ...
Karnataka State Financial Corporation and Sri Subramani and ors Vs. Sr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. One Shankar Rao had filed Writ Petition No.30642/2001 against Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short hereinafter referred to as 'KSFC') and others. It is the case of Shankar Rao that one S K Paramesh - proprietor of Classic Garments, NO. IB, Jarakabande Kaval, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore 560086 had raised loan with KSFC. Thereafter. S K Paramesh requested transfer of all the liabilities to M/s Trendswear International - respondent no.3. Correspondences between them have taken place. It is contended by the writ petitioner that the title deed of the property standing in the name of his father Sri B T M Ramachandra Rao is with-held by respondent no.1 though the petitioner's father has not created any mortgage in favour of KSFC. So, pray for allowing the writ petition.2. As against the case of the petitioner the defence by the KSFC is that while transferring the loan in favour of respondent no.3 - C.R.Chennabasappa, b T M Ramachandra Rao has deposited the title deeds of his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›
- Last »