Skip to content

Karnataka Court March 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.

Mar 23 2010

Sri T.S. Muralidhar S/O Sriramaiah Vs. Shi H. Narayana Singh Proprieto ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-23-2010

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. This appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. upon grant of special leave by this Court, is by the complainant in C.C. No. 308/2004 on the file of the Additional C.J.M., Bangalore District, and is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District in Crl. A. No. 69/2006, whereby the judgment and order dated 17.5.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate convicting the respondent - accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short 'the N.I. Act'], came be set aside and the accused was acquitted.2. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 142 of the N.I. Act against the respondent - accused inter alia contending that the respondent - accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the month of July 2003 and towards discharge of the said hand loan, he issued the cheque bearing No. 238109 dated 15.11.2...


Mar 22 2010

Smt. S. Clara, Founder Chair-person and Smt. S. theresa, Vice-presiden ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-22-2010

Reported in: 2010(3)KarLJ89

A.S. Bopanna, J.1. Since there is inordinate delay in filing this appeal, we have perused the appeal papers to find out as to whether any purpose would be served in ordering notice to the respondents to consider the applications. While doing so, we notice that appellant has called in question the order dated 14.3.2006 passed in W.P. No. 16578/2005.2. A perusal of the order would indicate that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition since liberty was sought to withdraw the writ petition further indicating that the appellant would approach the authorities concerned under the mandatory provisions under the Education Act and the Rules.3. The appellant party in person would state that subsequent to the same, a review petition in R.P. No. 4/2007 was filed before the learned Single Judge. The order dated 12.1.2007 passed in the said review petition is made available to us. A perusal of the said order would indicate that the learned Single Judge has in fact noticed that the ...


Mar 22 2010

Giryanna Dead by L.Rs. S/O Eranna (Hanumanthayappa S/O Giriynna and or ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-22-2010

Ravi Malimath, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr Dn.), & JMFC, Madhugiri in R.A. No. 178/99 confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.08.1999 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC. Pavagada in O.S. No. 359/94, the defendants have filed the present appeal.2. The parties are referred to as they were referred to in the trial Court.3. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants far declaration of his title and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is averred that the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff being brothers divided the ancestral property during the life time of his father. The plaintiff received the schedule properties in the said division arid since then he is in enjoyment and possession of the same and cultivating the lands. The plaintiff being a heart patient, the defendants took advantage of his illness and interfered with his suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit for declaration ...


Mar 22 2010

Sri. K. Vasanthkumar S/O Thimma Poojari Vs. the Commissioner, Bruhat B ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-22-2010

ORDERThe writ appeal is allowed. Order dated 18.2.2010 passed in Misc.W. No. 1468/10 in WP No. 34556/09 vacating the interim order is set aside and the interim order granted is extended till the disposal of the writ petition....


Mar 22 2010

Shri Krishnamurthy S/O Late Sri Basavanneppa Sangannavar Vs. the Regis ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-22-2010

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioner is a Judicial Officer presently working as II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bellary. In this writ petition, he is seeking a declaration that the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, with regard to appointment to the post of District Judge, are illegal as the same contravene the decision of the Apex Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2002(3) Kar.LJ 26 (SC). He has also sought for quashing Annexure-B Circular issued by the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, on 32.12.2008 notifying the norms/guidelines for promotion of the judicial officers to the cadre of District Judge from the cadre of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.).2. The petition averments reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a Munsiff during May 1987 and was promoted as Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) during the year 1999. As he had put in 23 years of service as a Judicial Officer, he was hopeful of securing a promotion to ...


Mar 22 2010

H.S. Jayappa S/O Late K. Siddappa Vs. Principal Secretary to Governmen ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-22-2010

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that his service from the dale of initial appointment till the date the management was admitted to the grant-in-aid was excluded by the respondents while calculating the pension and other benefits.2. Identical issue came up for consideration before this court in W.P. No. 19431/2005 and connected matters disposed on 13.10.2006. Learned Counsel on both the side submit that this court in W.P. No. 19431/2005 and connected matters held that respondents are liable to take into consideration the period from the date of initial appointment to the date of management was admitted to the grant-in-aid for the purpose of calculating pension and other benefits. The order in W.P. No. 19431/2005 and connected matters passed by the learned single Judge came to be affirmed by a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 450/2007 and connected maters.For the reasons stated above, the following:...


Mar 22 2010

Sri C.H. Vivekananda Son of Sri Honnurappa Vs. Smt. N. Sheela Wife of ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-22-2010

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Petitioner-husband is before this Court questioning the order passed by the learned family Judge awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife and minor child. In addition to that, the family Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses.2. Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband submits that the awarding of interim maintenance at the rate as granted is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and not commensurate with the income of the petitioner-husband. He further submits that the petitioner has offered onetime permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/-. But however, the wife has not accepted the same.3. I have perused the impugned order. The respondent wife has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The application would indicate that for the present, she is under the care and custody of her parents and they are unable to meet t...


Mar 22 2010

Sri. Palappa S/O Obaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by the ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-22-2010

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents.2. Petitioner has sought for to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to initiate proceedings on the basis of the sketch at Annexure-A and to enquire into the matter and pass orders regularizing the occupation of the petition in respect of 1 acre of agricultural land in Sy. No. 17 of Kasturipura village, Bilichodu Hobli, Jagalur Taluk, Davangere District.3. Heard.4. According to the petitioner, he is in occupation of the property to the extent of 1 acre of agricultural land in Sy. No. 17 of Kasturipura Village since 40 years and also he is said to have made a representation in this regard seeking for regularization after holding enquiry, despite that, no information is available. Accordingly he has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus.5. According to the learned Government Pleader, except a bald petition being filed, no particulars have been given as to the dat...


Mar 22 2010

Master Sharath Babu M.R. Son of Mr. M.N. Ravindra (Represented by His ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-22-2010

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 11.02.2004 passed in MVC No. 2523/2000 on the file of the IX Additional Civil Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-7), (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant has presented this appeal, through his natural guardian, mother, for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for first respondent.4. The occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustain...


Mar 22 2010

Prakash S/O. Kallappa Vs. State by Turuvanur Police Rep. by State Publ ...

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Mar-22-2010

ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. Though the matter is posted for admission, with consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner heroin was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and was convicted and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment on various counts and to pay the fins.3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal and there was a delay of 88 days in filing the appeal. Hence, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied by an affidavit of the petitioner, wherein he stated that after the Order of conviction was pronounced, he has deposited the fine amount and in fact he was not aware that he could prefer an appeal. Later, he has filed an appeal and as there was 88 days delay in filing the appeal, he filed an application and sought for condonation of delay and s...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial