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.Rajashekar S/O Boregowda Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is alleged to have committed theft of a motor cycle bearing Reg, N o. KA -11 -H-4006 CD-100, which belonged to first informant. The alleged theft has taken place on 25.6.2010. First information was lodged on 30.8.2010, wherein first informant had stated that he had definite information that his motor cycle was stolen by petitioner. However, the source of definite 1/5 information not made known in first information. The petitioner has been working as alderman. Therefore, the situation of petitioner fleeing away from justice can be ruled out.2. In the circumstances without going into further details, the direction sought for is granted for a limited period in the result, I pass the following order;Petition is accepted. Petitioner is anticipatory bail, subject to following conditions:1} If petitioner is arrested in Crime No.292/2010 registered for an offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC by K.M.Doddi police, has, Mandya District, he shall be released on bail o...
Smt. Gowramma, and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner no.1 is the mother whereas petitioner No.2 is the father of petitioner No.3 who are respectively accused 1 to 3 before the Trial Court in S.C.No.285/2006. Accused No.3 married one Smt.Latha daughter of Smt. Susheelamma the complainant and the marriage took place on 17.11.2005 at Bangalore City. After the marriage, Smt.Latha did not join the petitioner in bed till she breathed her last i.e. on 04.01.2006. She stayed at the marital home between the date of marriage and the date of her death hardly for about a week or so. It is claimed by the prosecution that the deceased Latha during her stay in the house of the accused was subjected to cruelty and harassment and even at the time of the marriage; the family members of the deceased had given Rs.30.000/- dowry, golden chain, rings and golden ornaments to the deceased. After the marriage, it is alleged that the spouses were cordial for about 20 days and thereafter, the 3rd petitioner went to his job at Visakhapatnam.2...
Dr. T. PadmanabhA. S/O. Late Mr. D. Thimma Setty Vs. Mrs. Rajeshwari B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. These petitions have been filed for quashing the orders on I.A.Nos.7 and 8 allowing the applications of the respondent filed under Section 151 CPC and under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of these petitions are as under:The petitioner herein is the defendant, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit bearing O.S. No. 5730/2005 filed for the relief of possession, payment often and mesne profits etc., after the suit was filed, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement and the material on record reveals that Mrs.Rajeshwari Bai was examined as a witness. The above said Mrs.Rajeshwari Bai is the Power of Attorney holder of Mr.Arun Goudar and as could be seen from the copy of plaint produced at Anncxure-A. it is mentioned as Mrs.Rajeshwari Bai, Wife of Mr.V.Sundarem, Aged 75 years, PA Holder of Mr.Arun Goudar, residing at 'Bhuvana', No.98, Ground Floor, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004. It is in these circumstances as...
Shanthappa S/O Keriyappa Vs. Nagappa K.S S/O Keriyappa,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. The appellant was the defendant before the trial Court. The suit for bare injunction was by the purchaser of the suit property. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that though the property was sold under a registered sale deed, it was with a condition that the bank loan which was secured, on the security of the properly, being settled by the purchaser. That not having been complied with the defendant has continued in possession and therefore he was resisting the plaintiffs attempt to take over the suit property. The trial Court however negated the contention and recorded that the sale deed itself indicated that the possession was delivered and therefore, decreed the suit. The same was challenged in appeal by the present appellant. Before the lower appellate Court an attempt was made to file a counter claim seeking declaration to the effect that the sale deed was not binding since the purchaser had not complied with the conditions imposed therein. That application was decid...
Smt Kamalabai W/O Sri. Roopchand Vs. Smt Sundaramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. This revision under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order in HRC.525/05 dated 4.12.2009 on the file of Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, dismissing the petition as not maintainable.2. Heard Sri V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.3. From the records, it is manifest that the petitioners initiated eviction proceedings against one Sundaramma under the provision of Section 27(2)(r) of the Act on the premise that they had purchased the property described in the schedule to the eviction proceedings in the year 1989 from her as evidenced from the salts deed dated 13.9.1999 for valuable consideration. Subsequent to the transfer of absolute title on them Sundaramma executed an agreement of lease in terms of which she became the tenant under them in respect of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.5C0/-. Contending that the property was purchased by them for their own use a...
Mr.Shivananja S/O Late Nanjaiah Vs. the State Rep by Ita
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.208/2010 registered for an offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.2. This Court in Criminal Petition No.3009/2010 dated 25.10.2010 had granted bail to accused NOB.2 and 3 against whom similar allegations are made. Therefore, petitioner can be released on bail on the ground of parity.3. In the result, 1 passes the following order:Petition is accepted. Petitioner is released on bail, subject to following conditions:1) Petitioner/accused No.4 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and offer a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court.2) Petitioner/accused No.4 shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.3) Petitioner/accused No.4 shall regularly attend the Court....
Shri Madegowda S/O Late Chowde Gowda Vs. Shri Suresh S/O Basavanegowda ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.49/2010 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr Divn.,) Malavalli, against respondents 11 & 12 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. Respondents 1 to 10 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to impaled them as additional defendants, to which the petitioner filed statement of objections and opposed the prayer tot imp leading. The trial court has allowed the application and has permitted the respondents 1 lo 10 to come on record as additional defendants. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this writ petition.2. Sri G.S.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the imp leading applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings and the trial court without noticing the scope of the suit and the ratio of law laid down in catena of decisions, more particularly in these case of THIMMEGOWDA VS. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in 1996(1) Kar.L...
Smt.Neena Singh, Vs. Shashanli Singh.L
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. Appellant is the respondent in the Family Court, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16-11-2007 made in M.C.No.568/2007. Preferred this appeal.2. The respondent herein is the petitioner in M.C.No.568/2007 filed a petition under Section 13(l)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for dissolution of their marriage solemnized on 17-11-2002 at Hyderabad.3. The petitioner in his petition has contended that the respondent is his legally wedded wife and their marriage was solemnized on 17-11 -2002 at Hyderabad and it was an arranged marriage as per the customs and rituais of the petitioner's community. After the marriage, the respondent stayed in the marital house at Bangalore. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born on 17 11 -2005. It is the case of the petitioner that his parents are retired from service and they are staying along with him and his father is diabetic. Due to that his leg was amputated and he is bed-ridden. The marital life was initially very cordial. But...
Sri. Venkata Swamy, Sri. G. Manjunath, Vs. Sri. Sadhasiva Reddy, S/O. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the orders granting Temporary Injunction against him confirmed in the appeal before the Fast Track Court, Bangalore.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:I will refer to the parties as per their rank before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience.The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit bearing O.S.No.483/2009 filed by the respondent herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing S.No.38/2 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of Kodathi Village, Varthur Hobli, and Bangalore South Taluk. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 30.6.1989 registered as document No.3493/1989-90 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Bangalore on 3.7.1989. The copy of the sale deed has been produced at Annexure-L. It is on the basis of this sale deed t...
The Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Smt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2010
1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mysore, dated 13.12.2006 in WCA/CR-15/2006/FC is called in question in this appeal by the Insurance Company.2. The appellant-Insurance company is questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner and not its liability. The only question raised by the appellant before us is whether the income of the deceased taken by the Commissioner at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive or not?3. It is not in dispute that, the deceased Mallu was working as a loader and un-loader in a tractor-trailer bearing registration No.HA-10 T-555 & 556. which was owned by the respondent No.6 in this appeal. Mallu lied on 28.03 2006 while discharging his duties as a loader and un-loader under the 6"' respondent on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The deceased Mallu was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and according to the claimants, he was get...
- ‹ Prev
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- Next ›
- Last »