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.
Smt Hemavathi Major W/O.Late Sri Srinivasa Vs. Smt K Mahadevamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the order dated 21.9.2010 passed by V Addl. I Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore, in CC.No.607/2010,in so far as it relates to imposing condition to furnish one surety for ?25,000/-.2. Notice to respondent is dispensed with.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. Section 439(l)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:"That any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail is set aside or modified."5. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure instead of moving an application under Section 439(l)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of Sessions. When the statute prescribes that if the condition prescribed while granting bail is harsh, the petitioner has to move the Court of Sessions under Section 439(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure for modification. Instead of approachi...
Ramanna Son of Yankappa Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. A case has been registered by the Kerur Police against the petitioners in Crime NO. 123/2010 for offences punishable under Section 80. 81 OF KP ACT AND 143. 147. 148, 336, 342. 323, 324, 504, 506, 109. 353, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and m fact they were playing cards but not andar-bahar. Since it was a festival day. the people surrounding the village gathered and they were playing cards not for gambling purpose. As it is stated in the complaint itself about 17 police officials on receiving the credible information that the petitioners were gambling went to the spot and gherowed the said assembly and on enquiry, the police came to know about names and address of each one of them who were about 44 persons and two of the said unlawful assembly escaped and brought about 50-60 people to the spot and they were armed with stones, clubs etc. those persons who wee arrested were grante...
K Srintvasalu S/ O Kalappa Naidu Vs. Muraijakandguptha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal,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 15.11.2006, when the claimant was walking on the left side of Mysore road, near Hosakkerehalli cross, from west to east, a scooter bearing registrationNO.KA-02-R/9841 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a chum petition before MACT, Bangalore seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.63,000/- 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 co...
Regional Manager National Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Lakka Naik S/O Tholacha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. These seven Miscellaneous First Appeals have arisen from the same common Judgment and respective Awards dated 23.01.2006 passed in MVC Nos.2299.2255. 2369. 2814, 2306. 2322 and 2313 of 2004 on the file of the learned Member. MACT. and XVI Addl. Judge. Court of Small Cause Bangalore City, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal' for short). These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company with which the vehicle viz., the bus bearing Regn. No.KA-06-A-468 which was involved in the accident that occurred on 31.03.2004 at about 3.35 p.m. near Chhikkanayakanahalll was insured. The appellant-insurer has challenged in all these appeals : Incorrectness of the impugned Judgment and respective Awards insofar as the liability of the insurer to indemnify the owner of the said bus is concerned.2. I have heard the arguments of Sri A.N.Krishna Swamy. The learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer and Smt.Umadevarnma. The learned Counsel for the respective-claimants in all these appeals. Per...
State of Karnataka, Vs. Verikatesh, S/O. Jayavelu,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenged the judgment dated 28.10.2004 in S.C.No.359/1999 passed by the XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City acquitting of the accused of the offence u/s 498-A and 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPC. Sri. K.A. Pasha learned counsel for the 2nd respondents submit that Accused Nos.1 and 2 are no more.2. Therefore, it was instructed to the said counsel to find out the veracity of the report. The Byatarayanapura Police has reported that Accused Nos.1 and 2 had long left the house where they were staying during the trial, therefore their whereabouts are not known. Considering the submission of the counsel for the accused it is taken that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are not alive. Hence, the case against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 is closed as abated.3. In so far as Accused No.3 is concerned, it is seen from the material on record that there is no direct allegations against the Accused No.3 except the averment that Accused No.3 was living with Accused Nos.1 and 2....
Rangegowda S/O.Late GovindegowdA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in Crime No .20/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.2. Heard Sri A.H.Rhagavan, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, and learned Counsel for respondent-Iokayufctha police.3. The petitioner/accused is alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.20,000/- from first informant for allowing free transit of lorries loaded with granite blocks, belonging to first informant. The first informant not willing to bribe the petitioner lodged first information with Lokayuktha police at Hassan. On 18.10,2010 a trap was laid. The petitioner was caught red handed when he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.20,000/- from first informant. The petitioner was arrested on 18.10.2010 and he has been in judicial custody.4. The learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that the offences alleged against petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonmen...
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South Western Rathray Vs. the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This appeal was filed questioning on 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 -n 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, permitting 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 end to restore the appeal, Misc. Cvl. 16522/09 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 deroga...
Sri.H.Srinivasa Murihy, S/O.Late Sri.Hanumantharaju Vs. Smt.Mangala, W ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is before this Court under Section 24 of CPC praying to transfer the suit in O.S.No.951/2010 pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, to the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH No.7) at Bangalore.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed two suits, viz., one in O.S.No.8824/1999 against the respondents and the same is pending on the file of XXII Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH No.7) at Bangalore, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also for declaratory belief and out of the suit schedule property, schedule 'G' and 'H' properties are situated within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and in respect of these two properties, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.951/2010 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Bangalore, for declaration that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by cancelling the re...
Shankar S/ O Late Siddaiah Vs. K D Shankare Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. for the take of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arc referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal,4. The brief facts of the case:On 03.11.2005, when the claimant was going on his Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.KA-1J./K-3025 towards Chikka-Mandya near Sri Hanumanthaswamy Temple on Chikka Mandya Road, Mandya, a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-ll-T-2442 and 2443 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, Mandya seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him compensation of 48,000/-with interest at 8%p.a.5. As there is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident,...
Sri.Mallu @ Mallappa S/O Siddappa Vs. State by Gundlupete Police Stati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is father of the deceased. It is alleged that the petitioner was harassing his wife and his daughter (deceased). The wife of the petitioner (first informant) had lodged a complaint against the petitioner.2. On 23 2.2010, petitioner visited the house of his mother-in-law, where his daughter (deceased) and his wife (first in form ant) were staying and threatened them to withdraw the case filed against him. When they did not heed to his demand, the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted them. Later, his daughter (deceased) committed suicide. The petitioner is alleged to have abetted the commission of suicide of his daughter.3. Considering the nature of offences and allegations lodged against petitioner and punishment provided thereon, detention of petitioner during trial would be a measure of punishment. Therefore, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail subject to following conditions:1) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and offe...
- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »