Karnataka Court July 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.
J. Ramesh Rao Aged About 59 Years S/O J.S.N.Naik , J.Nagaraja Rao Aged ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
ORDER1.This application is filed by the applicant seeking leave of this court to prosecute and continue O.S.No.35/2008 filed against the respondent - company under liquidation on the tile of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Harihar.2. Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that they have no objection to grant leave to prosecute the suit subject to provisions under Sections 528, 529, 529(a) of the Companies Act. The submission of learned counsel for the Official Liquidator is placed on record. Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed permitting the application to prosecute and continue the proceedings in O.S.No.35/2008 pending on the file of the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Harihar. Any decree that is going to be passed in O.S.No.35/2008 is subject to provisions under Sections 528, 529 and 529(a) of the Companies Act. Ordered accordingly....
Surendra Babu S/O Sri Ramaih Aged About 40 Years. Vs. State of Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
ORDER1.Petitioners In both the petitions have called in question the proceedings in Crime No.16/2009 of Sadashivanagar Police Station and In Crime No. 77/2009 of High Grounds Police Station for the offence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981.2. Heard both sides. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act, is non- cognizable offence The police have no jurisdiction to investigate the same without the permission from the learned jurisdictional Magistrate in consonance with Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.4.The offence under Section 3 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for six months or fine or with both. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the police have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence. Considering the sa...
Santhosh S/O Late Byanna Aged About 30 Years, B.Yogesh S/O Byanna Aged ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
ORDER1.This Court by order dated 26.2.2010 had issued notice, However, the counsel for the petitioner has not appeared on 18.6.2010. The matter was adjourned. On 2,7,2010, as the counsel for the petitioner was not present, again the matter was adjourned, It appears Chat petitioner has no interest in the matter,2. Petition dismissed for non-prosecution....
H.R.Appannachr S/O Ramachar Aged 55 Years, Vs. the State of Karnataka, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner has called in question the order dated 5.10.2007 in P.C.R.No.25/2006 on the file of JMFC, Mudigere, Chickmagalur District, confirmed by Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur, in Crl.R.P.No.204/2007 dated 10.12.2009.2.Petitioner complainant had filed a complaint for an offence punishable under Section 420, 421, 423, 468 r/w 149 of the IPC interalia alleging that, the accused inducing the public that they are the owners of the property had collected the huge amount and in this regard they issued cheque. For which, the complainant had filed the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act and the said case ended in conviction. Against which, appeals are filed.3.Subsequently, he also filed the present complaint interalia alleging that, the accused created false document that they are the owners and cheated the complainant.4.Though complainant alleges that the accused have cheated, no particulars, no transaction is mentioned and collection o...
Sri Jayaram S/O.Galappa Aged About 50 Years, Vs. Sri Shafi S/O.Sir She ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
1.The Counsel for the appellant has filed a memo requesting for permission to convert this appeal into the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2.The perusal of the order impugned reveals that the trial court had issued the process to the accused for appearance and the process fee was not paid, though it was adjourned on different dates. In the circumstance, the trial court observed that despite granting sufficient opportunities, the complainant has not taken steps and no process fee was paid. Hence f it dismissed the complaint on the ground thai the complainant is not deligent and not interested and acquitted the accused,3.Looking into the facts and circumstances in which the order has been passed, it is an order under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. and not under Section 256 Cr.P.C. The perusal of Section 256 reveals - non-appearance of the complainant or his death, the accused could toe acquitted in case if the summons has been issued on the complaint and the matter is posted for the appearanc...
Srinivasa S/O K.T.Narasaiah Aged 38 Years Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge canceling the bail granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, once the Magistrate grants bail, Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Against the cancellation, the petitioner can seek appropriate relief under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence, with liberty, petition dismissed. Office is directed to return the original papers....
Sri.P.Shivadasan, S/O Late P.Thupran, Aged About 40 Years, Vs. C.B.i., ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1.The appellant arrayed as Accused No. 2 in Spl.CC.No.47/1998, on the file of XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore City, convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 420, 465 & 468 r/w 120B IPC and also for offences punishable under sections 13(2) r/w 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), has preferred this appeal.2.have heard Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned senior counsel for appellant / accused No,2 and Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned counsel for respondent/C.B.I.3.Before proceeding to narrate the case of prosecution, it is necessary to state that accused No.l, who had been convicted along with accused No.2 had filed Crl.A.No. 1467/2002 and he died during pendency of the said appeal resulting in abatement of the appeal. Accused No.3 was acquitted. The respondent / C.B.I, has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal of accused No.3.4.In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:D...
Archana Educational and Charitable Trust .Vs. M/S. Mufaddel Timber and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
ORDER1.Office has raised objections as regards to filing of proceeding copy in C.C.No.2014/2009 and Certified Copy of the complaint.2. On 15.12.2010, this Court had granted one week's time for compliance. Thereafter, again on 3.8.2010 one weeks time was granted. So far, needful is not done. Even on perusal of the petition, it reveals that, petitioner is seeking quashing of the charge in C.C.No.2014/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. From the material produced by the petitioner, 1 find no ground to interfere with the proceedings of the trial Court.3. Hence, petition dismissed....
Sri.Arvind Kumar Mishra S/O Sri. Radhya Shy Am Mishra Aged 45 Years, S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
ORDER1.Petitioners have called in question the proceedings on the file of 8lh Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.l 1670/2009 dated 10.2.2010.2.Alter taking cognizance, learned Magistrate found that, the offence alleged against the petitioners is one punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Since the said offence is tried exclusively by the Sessions Judge, the order of committal has been passed by the learned Magistrate.3.Charge sheet material clearly discloses the alleged offence. Considering the same, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and referred the matter. Taking cognizance does not require the Magistrate to give reasons. Considering the nature of offence and the material, I do not find any ground to interfere. Petition dismissed....
Sri.P.Krishnamurthy Bhat S/O Bhimabhat Aged About 31 Years. Vs. Sri.B. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
ORDER1.A memo is filed for dismissal of the appeal as settled out of Court.Memo is taken on record. Appeal stands dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »