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 Karibasavaswamy, S/O S.M. Umapathi Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co- ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice at Annexure C dated .4.2010 issued by the first respondent' under Section 69 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. 1959. The petitioner has admittedly filed his objections as per Annexure 'IT on 26.7.2010.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the matter before the competent authority.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the competent authority. All contentions are kept open. No costs....
Satish, S/O Kalappa and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused No.5, 7 to 14 in Crime No. 145/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 304 r/w 34 I.P.O., and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act.2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the State. I have taken through the investigation records, which would reveal that the petitioners and other accused were hunting a wild bore near the land of deceased. Accused No.6 fired a shot from his gun at wild bore, which accidentally struck the deceased and caused his death. In all, there are 14 accused. The investigation records do not reveal that these petitioners were also possessing guns and fired shots from their guns.3. In the circumstances, without going into further details, direction sought for is granted for a limited period to enable the petitioner to seek regular bail.4. In the result, I pass the following:ORDERPetition is accepted. Petitioners are granted anticipa...
Pankaj Jaswal Vs. Dr. Jasmeet Sumil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDERJ.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. The complainant/petitioner and the accused-respondent preferred a joint application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The aforesaid prayer made by the complainant/petitioner as also the accused-respondent was allowed, when the II Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court. Bangalore, passed a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 08.06 2009. The operative part of the aforesaid order is being extracted hereunder:"The marriage solemnized between the petitioners on 13-8-2002 is hereby dissolved from this date in terms of the Memorandum of settlement and granted decree of divorce accordingly. Draw up decree accordingly. Let the Memorandum of settlement be part of the decree. The petition is disposed off accordingly."The operative part of the order dated 08.06.2009 reveals that the memorandum of settlement executed between the complainant/petitioner and accused- respondent would be a part of the decree of divorce.2. Insofa...
State of Karnataka, Vs. Dasegowda and DasappA. S/O. KullegowdA. and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This appeal has been filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court. Mandya. In S.CNo. 197/2002 acquitting the respondents No. 1 to 4 who are accused NO.2 to 5 in the said case of the offences punishable u/s 143.498-A. 341 and 302 R/w Sec. 34 and i49 IPC.2. U is the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased Rathnamma. Accused No.2 and 3 are the parents of the accused No. 1. Accused No.4 is the brother of Accused No.1. Accused No.5 is the sister of Accused No. 1. It is alleged that after the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1, all the accused have treated the deceased with cruelty by forming themselves into unlawful assembly and thereafter they hive restrained the deceased Rathnamma wrongfully in the house and after pouring kerosene on her and set fire on her thereby all the accused have caused her death by burning, thereby they are alleged to have committed the offence u/s 302 IPC.3. After framing...
Sri.Madaiah, S/O Late Maraiah Vs. Sri.Malege S/O Late Maraiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 28.5.2010 on IA No.8 in OS No. 181/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), T.Narasipura.2. Heard regarding admission.3. Perusal of the record shows that the respondent Malege filed a suit in OS No.181/2001 against the petitioner Madaiah contending that he (plaintiff) and the defendant (petitioner herein) are brothers. They constitute Hindu undivided joint family. The family owns property described in the schedule to the plaint. He and the defendant have equal share. On that basis, he sought partition of the schedule property by metes and bounds to allot to with his legitimate share. The petitioner herein entered appearance and filed written statement and firstly contended that the name of the plaintiff is not Malege but he is Malegaiah. However, he described their father's name and also averred that plaintiff is called by Malegaiah name also. In para 2 of his written statement, there is category statement in unequivocal t...
Ajith Kumar S/O S Vasantha Vs. B Mahadevappa S/O Late Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. Appeal arises out of the order passed by the JMFC. Chamarajanagar in CC 87/2007 on 9.2.2009 dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused.2. According to the complainant he had lent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused for which the accused had issued two cheques for Rs. 1,25,000/- each drawn on Canara Bank, Chamarajanagar Branch. On presentation, one cheque was dishonored for insufficient funds and another cheque was returned with an endorsement 'material alteration. After issuance of legal notice, since there was no payment, complaint came to be filed. The trial court, after inquiry, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, complainant is before this Court in this appeal. Heard the counsel representing the parties.3. On perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it is seen, although the trial court has discussed about service of notice and all other aspects and has also opined that the signature on the cheques is that of the accused, but, the ground on which the complaint h...
Sri AshwIn Kumar Vs. Sri Chandrashekar Hari, 39 Yrs S/O Hari,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. These two appeals have been preferred against the order of dismissal passed by the XIII Addl.CMM, Bangalore in CC 4834 and 4835 / 2004 on 9.7.2008.2. According to the complainant. The accused had issued two cheques - one for Rs.5 lakhs and another tor Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Amanath Co-operative Bank Ltd. Shivajinagar Branch. The complainant and the accused commenced business under a partnership - M/s Events 2000 at LTscor Road, Bangalore. Also according to them, misunderstanding aiose and the accused informed the complainant to go out of the Firm and also informed the complainant to settle the accounts. In that connection, two cheques had been issued by the accused to the complainant and those cheques were dishonored for insufficient funds, on presentation during June 2004. After dishonor when the complainant informed the accused and demanded the money, the accused requested the complainant to give back the cheques and also assured to make cash payment. But He failed to make payment...
State by Turuvanur. Police Vs. H Shivanna, S/O Hatyappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 2.2.05 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chitradurga in S.C.37/04 acquitting the respondent of the offence under Sec.376 and 506 IPC.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6.6.2003 at about 2 p.m. in the land of one Kunia Muddappa at Jogi Boranahatty village within the jurisdiction of Turuvanur police station the accused committed rape on CW-1 Rathanamma who was going on her way, by gagging her mouth and thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sec.376 IPC.3. It is further charged against the accused that on the above date, place and time, the accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening CW-1 Rathnamma with injury mjury to her person, thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sec.506 IPC.4. After securing the presence of the accused, the prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 18 witnesses and got marked Exs.P-1 ...
The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Assista ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
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 lee 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, 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 and to restore the appeal, Misc. Cvi.16523/09 was filed. A perusal of the said misc. application, more particular, the contents of para S of the affidavit enclosed to the application, prima facie indicated the derogatory s...
Mr .Anwar Sharieff Vs. the State of Karnataka by D.J.Halli Police Stat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. The compliance of office objections is dispensed with.2. The injured and defector complainant has filed these petitions for cancellation of bail granted to respondents/accused, interalia contending that, having regard to the nature of injuries caused to him and the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the Trial Court should not have granted bail to the respondents. The respondents after their release on bail are threatening the injured by engaging rowdy elements. The respondents are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147. 148, 120-B, 307 r/w 149 I.P.C.3. The learned Trial Judge bearing in mind that as many as 14 accused are involved in the case and also taking into consideration the offences alleged against the accused has granted bail. The offences alleged against accused are not bailable, but they are not capital offences. The learned trial has granted bail to the accused on consideration of investigation records. Therefore, I do no...
- ‹ Prev
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- Next ›
- Last »