Karnataka Court July 2010 Judgments
S. Mahesh, S/O. Late C.L. Shivappa, Aged About 58 Years, Vs. M.A. Moha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
ORDER1.This complaint is filed alleging disobedience to the undertaking given by the respondent - accused in the compromise decree, which was recorded in O.S. No.8198/2009 on the file of the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dated 06.02.2010 on the ground that though the respondent had given an undertaking to vacate the premises, the vacant possession of the same has not been handed over to the complainant.2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.3.Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that even when there is disobedience to the decree passed by the trial Court, the contempt petition can be initiated and in support of his contention, he his relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court ;n S. BALASUBRAMANIYAM Vs, P, .1ANAKARA.1U AND ANOTHER (2004(5) Kar.L.J. 338) and the respondent has committed violation of the undertaking.4.We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. M.Siddarame Gowda S/O Muni Gowda Aged About 56 Years, Smt. H.Geet ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
ORDER1.After arguing for some time, learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the certified copy....
Tag this Judgment!Sultan @ Syed Sultan Aged About 25 Years, S/O Syed Siraj. Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner is accused in Crime No.368/2008 registered on 9.11.2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 498(A)of the IPC. After the death, case is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498(A) of the IPC.2.When the victim was admitted to the hospital, it appears that, her statement is also recorded. Case involves the eyewitness CW2. Death is due to Septicemia as a result of burn injuries.Considering the nature of allegations and the material collected by the prosecution, I find that, it is not a case for grant of bail. Petition dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramamurthy S/O. Late Narasimhaiah Aged About 79 Years, Vs. B.B. Sha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
ORDER1.Having regard to the order passed in Misc.Cvl.7674/2010 in RFA No.765/2007, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press the civil petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Corporation Bank , Vs. M/S Karnataka Leasing and Commercial Corporatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
ORDER1.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prayer in the application had become infructuous in view of the settlement of the controversy between the parties. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is placed on record. Accordingly, the application is hereby rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Satya D/O.Ponnuswamy Aged About 37 Years, 2. Ponnuswamy S/O.Late Honna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1.Appellant Nos.l to 3 are accused Nos.2 to 4 in SC.No.23/2001. Accusad Nos.2 to 4 along with accused No.l were tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 114 r/w 34 of IPC.2. Accused No. i-Nagaraja was the husband of deceased Shashikala. Their marriage was performed about 8 years prior to the date of incident. After the marriage, deceased was living with her husband. Accused No.3 (since deceased) was father of accused No.l. Accused No.4 is mother of accused No.l and accused No.2 is elder sister of accused No.l. Accused Nos.l to 4 are alleged to have committed murder of deceased Shashikala at about 7.00 P.M on 30.11.1999 in the house of accused No.l. It is alleged that accused Nos.l to 4 were subjecting deceased to cruelty in connection with dowry demand. Accused No.l was absconding. Charge sheet was submitted and accused Nos.2 to 4 were committed to face the trial.3. The learned trial Judge framed following charges:" Charge under Sec.228(l) Cr.P.C I, Sh.K.Somashekar,B...
Tag this Judgment!Sri N.T.Thimmarayappa S/O.Sri Thimmappa Aged About 61 Years, Vs. Smt N ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
ORDER1.Learned Counsel for the appellant has filed a memo filed and the submission to withdraw the appeal.2. In view of the memo filed and the submission made, the permission is accorded. The appeal dismissed as withdrawn....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. K.G. Shobha W/O. B.H. Jayaram Age: 33 Years Vs. B.H. Jayaram S/O. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
ORDER1.The petitioner was married to the respondent on 11.03.2001 at Sri. Jagajyothi Basaveswara Kalyana Mantapa, Vijayanagar, Bangalore. Two children were born out of their wedlock on 31.03.2003 and 3.6.2005 respectively. It is contended that the respondent started ill-treating her at the instance of his uncle Ugrashetty. Therefore, she filed a criminal case in C.C No. 142/2009 pending on the file of the 40, Addl. Civil Judge (Srd. Dn.) and CJM, Mysore, under section 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further contended that the respondent has filed a case in M.C. No.277/2009 under section 13(lHia)(ib) & (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,on the Family Court at Mysore, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner. She has filed a criminal Misc. No. 1468/2009 under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act which is pending before the competent Court at Bangalore. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the above petition u/s.24 of CPC seeking tran...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Shantha Kumar.G Aged About 43 Years Vs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
ORDER1.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous....
Tag this Judgment!Shri.B.S.Manjunath S/O SrinivasA.Aged About 32 Years.Smt.Gowramma W/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
ORDER1.Learned counsel for the petitioners files a memo. The memo reads as under:"The petitioners seek permission of this Hon'ble Court to permit them to convert the above Criminal Petition into the Criminal Revision Petition, since in view of the decision reported in(1)ILR 2005 KAR 5997 and(2)2006 CRI.L.J 778 the Revisional Court has the power to quash the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner. Hence this memo. 2. In view of the memo dated 28.06.2010, the petitioners are permitted to convert this Criminal Petition into Criminal Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »