Karnataka Court August 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.
Smt. Lakshmamma W/O Late Sri.Venkatesh Gowda Aged About 63 Years.Vs. t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1.Petitioner has called in question the proceedings in Crime No. 126/2010 registered by Bhadravathi Old Town, Shimoga District.2.Complainant alleges that, after the death of the mother, accused colluding with the Revenue Authorities with the help of the fabricated documents got her name entered in the revenue records with intention to cheat the complainant. In this regard, learned Magistrate has referred the matter to the Police for investigation. Matter is still under investigation. At this stage, this petition has been filed.3.Considering the nature of allegation, prima facie it discloses the alleged offence. When the matter is under investigation, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the petition fails and same is dismissed. However, the Police is directed to consider all the aspects and file appropriate report....
M.Srinivasa S/O Late Marihuchappa Aged About 51 Years.Vs. M.L. Yogesh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. Petitioner has called in question the order dated 6.10.2009 in C.C.No.6831/2007 on the file of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. 2. The learned Judge for not taking effective steps to get the NBW executed, has dismissed the case for non-prosecution. 3. Considering the explanation offered and the circumstances, I find, one more opportunity could be granted to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, this petition i& allowed. The order dated 6.10.2009 is set aside the matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to the petitioner to taken effective steps to execute the NBW. Failing which, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to pas appropriate order....
Uforia Health and Fitness Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Dr.irfan Akter D/O Shah Jehan A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. Petitioners have called in question the proceedings in Crime No.83/2010 registered by J.C.Nagar police, on 24.4.2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 415, 506 of IPC.2. Complainant alleges that, he and the accused constituted a partnership firm to ran a medical institution and it is in this regard they had deposited Rs. 13,30,000/- in the bank. However, the accused without the knowledge of the complainant had withdrawn the amount. On asking, he threatened the complainant. Based on these alligations, case has been registered and the matter is under investigation. At this stage, this petition has been filed for quashing.3. Considering the nature of allegation, and the circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere with the investigation proceedings. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to produce necessary material if any before the police, in such event the police shall take into consideration all the materials and file appropriate report....
Dr.Vijay Kumar S/O Kriahnojirao Aged About 40 Years, and ors.Vs. State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to argue for discharge,2. Permitted, Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for....
Savik Vijai Engg. Pvt Ltd.and ors.Vs. Kirlosker Investments and Financ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the petition.Memo is taken on record. This Petition is dismissed as withdrawn....
Aruna Kumari W/O Byrappa Aged About 61 Years.Vs. Smt. B.A.Anitha W/O M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. Petitioner has called in question the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.84/2008 on the file of J.M.F.C., Somwarpet,2. The domestic violence report is filed before the learned Magistrate interalia alleging violence against the complainant. In pursuance of the said report and the complaint, the learned Magistrate had initiated the proceedings. At this stage, this petition has been filed.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is no allegation of any violence alleged in the complaint and as such, the proceedings are vitiated.4. The domestic violence is reported in the prescribed form, prima facte, tisfg* discloses the alleged violence. Even if any details are shortcoming, it is open to the petitioner to raise objections before the learned Magistrate and learned Magistrate would consider the objections at the appropriate stage.Accordingly, the petition fails and same is dismissed....
Saraswathi Traders.Vs. the Director Agricultural Produce Marketing Com ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
ORDER1.Learned AGA is directed to take notice for R-l. Smt. Anupama Hegde, iearned Counsel, is directed to take notice for R-2.2. The petitioner was allotted a site bearing No.N2 at Chitradurga APMC yard and a lease cum sale agreement as per Annexure-A dated 11.3.1997 was executed in its favour. As per the said agreement, the petitioner ought to have to put up onstruction on the said site within a period of one year. Since the petitioner failed to put up construction as above, respondent No.2 has issued a notice dated 24/26.11.2008 as per Annexure-C forfeiting the site in question. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said notice dated 24/26.11.2008 as per Annexure-C in this writ petition.3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4.Learned cousnel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not put up construction on the said site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease cum sale agreement due to the reasons beyond its control. He further...
Karnataka Contractors Sahakara Bank Limited,vs. Sri N Subbareddy, 47 Y ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1.Appeal is by the complainant being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the XIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore in CC 9570/2003.2.According to the complaint, the wife of the accused availed loan from the complainant Bank for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs during November, 2002. Subsequently for recovery, when the cheque issued was presented, the same was returned dishonored. A case , therefore, came to be filed by the complainant. Ultimately, the trial court, on the ground that the complainant has not produced any document to show how much money was due by the wife of the accused, that the complainant has filed the complaint for an uncertain amount, as such, entertaining a doubt as to what is the exact amount due by the wife of the accused, has dismissed the complaint relying upon a decision of this Court holding that the cheque was issued for an uncertain future liability. 3.In connection with the amount borrowed by the wife of the accused, the accused is shown to have issued a cheque which is ...
K.L. Ramesh S/O. K.R.L. Setty Aged About 65 Years,vs. Bangalore Develo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
ORDER1.Heard.2.Misc. W. 2280/2010 for amendment is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to file an amended writ petition within one week....
Shri A.R. Kashinath, S/O. Sri A.N. Ramachandra Setty, Aged About 40 Ye ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1.This appeal is filed under section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C, against the acquittal of the respondent for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No. 59/2001 on the file of the JMFC, First Court at Davanagere. There is a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal. Respondent despite of service of notice had not entered appearance. Therefore, delay in filing appeal is condoned.2. The learned counsel for the appellant is absent. I have gone through the impugned judgment.As per the case of the complainant, respondent on executing on demand promissory note in favour of complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.6.1994. The said amount was paid through cheque bearing No.088991. The respondent was regularly paying the interest. That on 15.4.1999, respondent had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn infavour of the complainant which on presentation was dis-honoured for want of funds. When the matter was informed to the respondent, she requeste...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »