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.
M.Q. Ahiyashanear Swamy Age: 45 Years. Vs. State by Hassan City Police ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
1. Memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the petition with liberty to file a fresh bail application, Memo is accepted. Petitioner is at liberty to file bail application, if he is arrested by the respondent-police....
S.M. Suhail Ahamed, S/O. S. MoinuddIn Vs. State of Karnataka, by V.V. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No .76/2010 registered for offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC. He has sought for anticipatory bail.2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State.3. The petitioners is a distributer of mobile sim cards, he is said to have sold 12 MTS sim cards against a single application submitted by Sir. Dwarakanath for acquiring a Docomo sim card. During investigation, the retailer has made a statement about the complicity of the petitioner. Issuance of sim cards to different persons on a single application has become rampant. In the circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for proper investigation of the Therefore, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.Judge...
D.Sudhakar and Venkataramanappa Aged and ors. Vs. D.N.Jeevaraju and th ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. The writ petitions are filed praying for quashing the order of disqualification of the petitioners from the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. The Chief Whip of Bharatiya Janata Party (one of the complainant), the Speaker of the Vidhana Sabha (who has passed the impugned order) and one of the members of the Legislative Assembly (another complainant) are arrayed as respondents. Misc.W.No. 10698/2010 is filed praying for impleading Sri B.S.Yeddyurappa, Chief Minister of Karnataka State and Sri K.G.Bopa'ah,. Speaker of the Karnataka Vidhana Sabha. Though Speaker is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the writ petitions, the petitioners have filed this application to impaled the Speaker in person also.2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that certain allegations of mala fide are made against Sri B.S.Yeddyurappa and Sri K.G.Bopaiah in the writ petitions and therefore they are sought to be imp leaded. It is contended that the proposed respondents have colluded with each other fo...
D.Sudhakar and Venkataramanappa Aged and ors Vs. D.N.Jeevaraju and the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. Misc.W.No.9995/2010 is filed praying 'or leave to amend a portion of paragraph-9 of the writ petitions. The petitioners are praying for deletion of the last sentence from paragraph-9 of the writ petitions, which read thus:-The petitioner has not left the Bharatiya Janata Party at all."In its place, the petitioners seek leave to substitute the following sentence:- The petitioners have not joined Bharatiya Janata Party at all and the findings of the second respondent to the contrary are perverse and are liable to be set aside."2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the aforementioned sentence as found in paragraph-9 has appeared due to inadvertence and by oversight. It is an accidental mistake committed by the petitioners and their advocate, the same is not made with an intention of making a positive statement. Such a typographical error has crept in the writ petitions because of the fact that the advocate on record appearing on behalf of the petitioners could not go t...
Smt. Jayamala W/O. H.M.Ramachandra D/O. G.OmayyA. Vs. the Commissioner ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner is apprehending arrest in Crime NO.144/CR/KTM/2007 registered for an offence punishable under section 295A IPC. by CB.CID, EOW-II. Kottayam. Kerala State. Petitioner has sought for interim anticipatory bail to enable her to approach the jurisdictional court.When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader has made available the letter addressed by the Superintendent of Police, CB CID, EOW-II, Kottayam District, Kerala State to the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore wherein it is clearly stated that Superintendent of Police. CB CID, EOW-II has no intention to arrest the petitioner and there is no objection for granting interim bail to the petitioner in the instant petition.2. Sri. K.N. Rajeev, Deputy Superintendent of Police. CB CID, EOW-II is present before Court to confirm the contents of this letter. The letter is taken on record.3. In view of this letter, apprehension of petitioner that she is going to be arrested by the...
Sri M.J. Shiwani, Aged About 48 Years, S/O Late J.K.Shiwani, Vs. Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. Sri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel is directed to take notice for the respondents.2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the provisional assessment order at Annexure 'A' dated 6.10.2010 whereby the second respondent has claimed a sum of Rs. 1.88.959/-from the petitioner towards back billing charges.3.1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.4. As noticed above, the order impugned is a provisional assessment order referable to sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner is entitled to file objections to the said order. The petitioner should be granted some time to file objections to the said order. The second respondent has to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the final order under sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the Act.5. Therefore, the petitioner is granted two weeks time to file objections to the provisional assessment order at Annexure 'A'. The second respondent is dire...
M.Umesh S/O D.S.Murthy Rao Vs. Mandya West Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDERLearned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo. Memo reads as under:"The counsel for the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above petition reserving liberty to file discharge application before the Trial Court in the interest of justice and equity." In view of the memo dated 15.11.2010, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an application for discharge before the Trial Court and in case, if the petitioner files an application for discharge before the Trial Court, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.Judge...
Vinod Kumar, Police Constable. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No.307/2010 for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC.2. Heard Sri. R.B Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State.3.1 haw gone through records which would reveal that petitioner was working as Police Constable in KSRP, Shimoga. He was entrusted with a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,53,620/- with instructions to draw the amount and deposit the same in the Travelling Allowance Account Petitioner encashed the cheque but did not deposit the entire amount. He deposited a sum of Rs. 1,22,159/- in his two Savings Bank Accounts, thereby misappropriating the sum.3. The investigation records make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. In the c ire urns trance B, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for proper investigation of the case. Therefore, he cannot be granted bail , Accordingly petition is dismissed.Judge...
Shivaraj S.Thangadgi S/O.Sangappa S.Thangadgi. and D.Sudhakar S/O.N.Da ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. The writ petitions are filed praying for quashing the order of disqualification of the petitioners from the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. Respondent. No.1 is the Speaker of Karnataka Legislative Assembly (arrayed as an authority). Where as Speaker, in person, is arrayed as respondent No.2. Respondents 3 to 7 are the complainants before the Speaker. Misc.W.No. 10589/2010 is filed praying for imp leading Sri B.S.Yeddyurappa, Chief Minister of Karnataka State as respondent No.8 io the array of respondents.2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that certain Allegations of mala fide are made against Sri B.S.Yeddyurappa in the writ petitions and therefore he is sought to be imp leaded. It is contended that respondent No. 1/2 has passed the impugned order in collusion with the proposed respondent. In view of the personal allegations against the proposed respondent, he is a necessary party to the petitions.3. The application is opposed by the learned advocates appearing o...
Sri.S.M.Prakash. S/O.Muniswamy Reddy Vs. Sri.M.Munireddy, S/O.Late Mun ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. Heard on Misc.Cvl. 17576/2010. This is an application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the respondent from putting up any construction on the area marked 'ABCD' and WXYZ' in the plaint sketch, pending disposal of the appeal.2. As per the impugned Judgment, the Trial Court has declared that the appellant/plaintiff has acquired easementary right over the passage shown as 'ABCD' and 'WXYZ' in the plaint sketch and the defendant has been permanently restrained from putting up any construction over the said passage. Under such circumstances, the application filed for temporary injunction does not survive for consideration. Therefore, Misc.Cvl. 17576/2010 for temporary injunction is rejected. Notice regarding admission. Call for L.C.R. I ; Judge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »