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.
Mr. Babu Reddy, S/O. Sri Muniyappa and Mr. V.Madhusuahan, S/O. Sri N.V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. Defendants have filed these writ petitions questioning the order passed on I.As.9, 10 and 11 filed by them to reopen the case, condone the delay in the matter of documents and to receive them in evidence. The Trial Court even without hearing the counsel on both sides and without even enabling the plaintiff to have her say in the matter, has passed the order dated 18.10.2010.2. Heard the learned counsel and perused the writ record.3. The need for passing the reasoned orders even with regard to interlocutory applications was highlighted by this Court in the case of M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER VS. ANWAR SHERIFF, reported in AIR 2007 KAR9. wherein it has been held as follows: The desirability of a speaking order while dealing with the interim prayer sought for by a party cannot be lightly ignored, more so when both the parties have been heard and they have raised several contentions and as also when the same is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The requirement of in...
Ravichandra Tavag. and Vasudha K. Tavag. Vs. State by Halasur Gate Pol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner No.l and his counsel are present. Petitioner No.2 and her counsel are present. Joint petition is filed under Section 182 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the complaint filed by petitioner No.2 on 08.10.2010 in Crime No.56/20.10 with Halasoor Gate Women's Police Station, Bangalore.2. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of respondent -State. He submits that suitable order may be passed.3. Execution of the signatures made by petitioners 1 and 2 are admitted before the Court.4. Petitioner Nos.l and 2 are husband and wife. They were married on 21.02.1984 at Baroda. The dispute arose between the husband and wife and they wanted to settle the matter amicably. Therefore, they have presented this joint petition.5. At paragraph 6 of the joint petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash Crime No. 56/2010 of Halasoor Gate Women's Police Station. Bangalore.6. In view of the joint petition, I pass the following:ORDERi) This C...
D.Sudhakar Aged 52 Years, and ors. Vs. D.N.Jeevaraju, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ORDER1. The instant application is filed by the petitioners-applicants praying that they be permitted to add and place on record certain vital facts as well as grounds in continuation of the grounds already urged in the writ petitions.2. The contention on behalf of the petitioners- applicants is that the impugned order dated 10.10.2010 was passed so as to disqualify and prevent them from participating in the trust vote on 11.10.2010. The order dated 10.10.2010 was accordingly passed in the late hours on the said day, but no copy was served. The petitioners were however able to secure the copy of the impugned order at around 9.30 a.m. on 11.10.2010. In view of the urgency involved to file the petitions and seek interim order, the entire facts could not be narrated and the appropriate grounds could not be raised due to paucity of time. Under such circumstances, it has become necessary to bring on record all the facts and grounds by raising additional grounds. It is contended that no prej...
Dr. M.R.Jayaprakash, and M.R.Ramesh, Son of Late Ramakrishna Rao. and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDERThe petitioners 1 & 2 and their brother M.RJagannath Rao had chimed compensation from the respondents for acquisition of their lands pursuant to Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 15.10.1981. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, having been found to be unacceptable, a reference was sought to the civil court, where an award was passed, which also having found to be not reflecting the market value of acquired property, they filed MFA No.1724/1990, which was allowed in part by Judgment and award dated 06.12.19952. To recover the award amount, Ex.P No.69/2002 was filed, wherein the respondents have deposited the amount. M.RJagannath Rao has passed away on 03.07.2005. Petitioners 3 to 6 and Smt.janabai, mother of deceased M.RJagannath Rao. Claiming to be his legal representatives, filed an application under Older 1 Rule 10 CPC on 12.08.2005. SmtJanabai has passed away on 02.12.2005. Daughter of Janabai has filed an application to permi...
Javatha Raj, and Sri. S Narendra Vs. M/S. Margadarshi Chits (Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the execution case initiated by the if respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.,) at Davangere, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 6 for realizing the award amount, wherein an order of attachment of movables of the petitioners has been issued.2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The Is* respondent-M/s.Margadarshi Chits (Kar) Pvt. Ltd., is a chit company registered under the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short (the Act'). The 2nd respondent was a subscriber. He has drawn the chit amount on the co-obligation of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 6. The subscriber defaulted in payment of subscription due in accordance with the terms of the chit agreement. To recover the dues, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Chapter XII of the Act, before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Davangere District. An award came to be passed against respondents 2 to 6 arid the petitioners on 18.08.2007. The said a...
Smt. Muthamma W/O R.Jagan Nathan, and Sri Mare Gowda S/O Madaiah and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDER1. Respondents 1 and 2 nave filed O.S. 1933/1997 in the City Civil Court at Bangalore, for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming l/4th share in the plaint schedule property against the petitioners and respondents 3 to 7/defendants. Written statement has been filed. Issues have been framed on 3.11.2002. Trial has taken place. For the defendants, Exs.Dl to 209 has been marked.2. Plaintiffs filed I.A.1/2009 under S.151 CPC on 23.6.2008 to direct the defendants 4 to 22 to pay penalty in respect of the documents marked as Exs.D3, 18, 29, 40, 52, 99, 158 and 159, 173 and 174, 187 and 188, 198, 199, 209 and 209 on the ground that they are not duly stamped and registered. The petitioners filed statement of objections on 7.7.2009 and opposed the prayer. The Trial Court has passed an order dated 2.1.2010 where under, it has allowed the said application and has directed the petitioners to pay the stamp duty with penalty in respect of documents (other than E"x.D3), stated s...
Smt Rathnamma W/O Narayanappa and ors.Vs. Smt MuninanjammA. W/O H Muni ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDER1. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.29/2005 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.j K.G.F, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 herein for partition and separate possession claiming l/7th share in the plaint schedule properties. Written statement was filed by the 1st defendant-Yelagappa and the same was adopted by the other defendants. Issues were framed and trial of the suit has commenced. I.A No.7 was filed by the defendants to amend the written statement as proposed. The prayer was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial court upon consideration of LA No.7, finding the same to be devoid of merit, has passed an order of dismissal. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed this writ petition.2. Heard Sri S.R.Hegde Hudlamane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A.Krishna Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the writ petition record.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had stated on 29.10.2010 that, the petitioners do ...
Mr. H. K. Ramesh S/O. Late Krishne GowdA. Vs. State by Cubbon Park
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in Ciitne No.93/2009 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC by Cubbon Park police.2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State.3. The petitioner is alleged to have drawn cheques in the name of M/s.Nandagopal Dairy of which accused Nos.l arid 2 were the Proprietors. With a view to defraud the bank. Accused No.3 had discounted the cheques knowing fully well that they were issued to defraud the bank, without there being any intention to honor them. Accused Nos.l and 2 presented and discounted the cheques and withdrew the cash. When the cheques were sent for collection, they were not honored. During investigation, it was found that accused had issued aforestated cheques with dis honest intention of causing wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to accused Nos. 1 and 2.4. In the circumstences, custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary for proper investig...
M/S Essar Telecom Ltd. Vs. K Nagaraj S/O Late KaribasappA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel and perused the writ papers.2. Indisputably, the petitioner has obtained the plaint schedule premises from the respondent on monthly rental basis. The respondent after issuing notice of termination of tenancy to the petitioner in respect of the plaint schedule premises has filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of damages, mesne profits and consequential reliefs. The petitioner has filed the written statement to the suit.3. Respondent filed an application for issue of direction to the petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the premises. After rejecting the application, the trial court has passed the judgment on admissions i.e., under Rule 6 of Order 12 CPC. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed this writ petition.4. Having perused the writ petition papers, in my opinion, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner, if aggrieved, has to challenge the impugned judgment by filing an appeal.The writ petition being not maintainable stands rejec...
Mrs. Thahira Rehman, Aged About 50 Years, W/O. T.A.Abdul Rehman. and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
ORDERRespondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs have instituted O.S.No.296/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.,) Mangalore, against the petitioners and the 5th respondent/defendants, for the following reliefs:"a. For a declaration that the registered deed of settlement dated 07.10.2002 executed by the Is' defendant settling her right title and interest in item No. 1 of schedule 'B- property with undivided share in 'A' schedule in favour of the third defendant, being the deed, registered as Doc.No.2476/2002-03 of Book No.l Volume No.2675 at pages 361 to 372 on the file of Sub-Registrar of Mangalore City is a void document and does not convey any right, title and interest in respect of item No.l of schedule 'B' to the third defendant. b. For a declaration that the registered deed of release dated 11.10.2002 executed by the second defendant, releasing her right, title and interest in item No. 1 of the schedule 'B' property in favour of the third defendant being the release deed, registered as D...