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.
Siddappa Son of Tippanna Teggi. and ors 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 base and in 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 gamblingwent 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 were arrested were grant...
MallappA. S/O Pandappa Naik 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 in 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 were arrested were gran...
Vasudeva Asranna S/O Late Srinivasa Asranna Vs. the Deputy Commissione ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondents 2 to 8 is dispensed with since the order to be passed in this writ petition will not affect them. Heard the petitioners counsel and the learned Government Advocate.2. Certain litigation between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 8 is pending consideration before the first respondent. At an earlier point of time, the litigation cams upto this Court in WP.No. 16984/1999. Said writ petition came to be disposed of on 14.2.2002 directing the first respondent to decide the matter within three months from 22.3.2002. The said order is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.3187/2002. In spite of specific direction by this Court, the dispute is not resolved by the first respondent.The records reveal that, earlier the dispute was in File NO.LAW.CR.41/91-92. Later it was converted into File No.LAW.CR.3/2002-03. Now it is continued in File No.LAW.CR.26/2009-10.It is brought t...
Sri Ghewarram Vs. Smt K Mahadevamma W/O Late Sri Kariyappa
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.608/2010,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 be 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 approachin...
Sri Lakkappa S/O.Kotturappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the applicant before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, being aggrieved by the identical order passed in Application No.6603/2010 dated 20.10.2010, wherein, the Tribunal has passed identical order declining the prayer for granting stay at the stage of issuing notice to the respondents and has directed that all applications and similar connected applications should be posted after service of notice. Petitioner herein filed application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, being aggrieved by the amendment to C & R Rules and the consequential order of repatriation of the petitioner. An application for stay is filed along with the petition. In all the applications the Learned Tribunal by order dated 20.10.2010 after considering the contention of the Counsel appearing for the parties observed as follows:-"Therefore, At this stage, we decline to grant stay. List these applications and similar connected applications after service of notice."T...
Smt.T.H.Jayalaxmi, W/O.T.P.Harish, Vs. Shri.T.P.Harieh, S/O.Late Putta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner/wife of the respondent is before this Court under Section 24 of CPC praying to transfer the case in M.C.No.4/2009 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Virajpet to Family Court at Mysore.2. In spite of service of notice, respondent has not entered appearance.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is living with her brother within the jurisdiction of Family Court at Mysore and therefore, the case pending on the file of CM Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Virajpet, may be withdrawn and made over to the Family Court at Mysore.4. The petitioner has filed an application Misc.Cvl. 16508/2010 under Section 151 of CPC seeking direction to the respondent to pay maintenance. The application is annexed with the affidavit.5. According to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, she is residing at Elavala, Mysore taluk and in Criminal Miscellaneous No.41/2009, by order dated 03.02.2009, granted an interim maintenance of Rs.800/- per month and the responde...
Lakshmappa S/O Holeppa Avibiger and ors 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 in 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 were arrested were gran...
State of Karnataka by Turuvekere Police Vs. Jayanna; S/O Late Sri.Shrv ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 07.04.2004 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in S.C.No. 131/2002 acquitting the respondents of the offence under Sections 323 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused 1 to 4 on 15.12.2001 at about 2.30 p.m., in front of the house of PW-1 Lakahmamrna situated at T.B.CroBs, Mayasandra Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, in pursuance of their common intention to cause injury to Lakshmamma and to commit the murder of Gowrarnma. picked up quarrel with Lakshmamrna and her sister-in-law Gowramma and also Chennakeshavaiah, husband of Lairs hnramma. Accused No.3 assaulted Gowramma with an iron rod, on her head, Accused No.1 and 4 assaulted her on her stomach, back and waist, and Accused No.2 assaulted Lakshmamma with bricks en her legs causing irrjixries, which later resulted in the death of the said Gowramma, Accused No.2 also assaulted Lakshmamma causing her injuries and there...
The National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pr Jayalakshmi and Sri.G Anandappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. Admit.These eight appeals are by the insurer, directed against the impugned common judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.947/94, 949/94. 950/94 and 951/94, dated 4.2.2004, on the file of the II Additional District Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumkui and MVC Io& 534/94. 556/94, 558/94 dated 20.12.2003, on the fik vf the I Addl District Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumkur and MVC 724/94 dated 27.4.2004 on the file of the H Additional District Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumkur (ibr short Tribunal).2 The occurrence of accident and the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. The claimants having filed claim petition against the two Insurance Companies and the owner of the vehicle end the driver respectively is not disputed.3. Eight claim petitions had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award has allowed in part taking into consideration the age, occupation, nature of inj...
Dr. K H Pujary S/O Late Babu Pujasy Vs. M Jayarama Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. Though this matter is coming on for admission, the matter is heard and taken up for final disposal.2. This Appeal is by the complainant assailing the order of the HI Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Udupi, in CC No.3757/2005 dated 15.6.2009 in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused.According to the compiamant, he is a whole sale dealer in liquor running the proprietary concern Udupi Wholesale Wines at Ajjarkad, Udupi and the accused is the proprietor of Surabi Bar, Bramhavar and VyshaH Bar and Restaurant, Arasikere, Kassan District. The accused having purchased liquor from the complainant, owed a sum of Ps.61,662/- and to discharge the said debt, issued a cheque during March 2005. On presentation of the cheque, the same was dishonored for insufficient funds. After issuance of legal, notice, since the accused did not make payment, complaint came to be filed. The Trial Court, after enquiry dismissed the complaint hence, this appeal by the complainant,3. Heard the learn...
- ‹ Prev
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- Next ›
- Last »