Karnataka Court January 2011 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.
Sadashiva Reddy, Vs. State by Station Head Officer, Malleshwaram Polic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Heard both sides in respect of the anticipatory bail petition filed following the case being registered in respect of the offences punishable under sections 408, 409. 468, 471, 420, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC.2. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that, the 1st accused, was granted anticipatory bail by this court earlier and therefore, this petitioner also be given the same relief.3. Having gone through the order of this court in respect of A-l, it is noticed that A-l was given anticipatory bail for a limited duration. However, in view of the latest: decision of the Apex Court, question of granting anticipatory bail even for limited duration does not arise as no such intention of the legislature can be read into section 438 of Cr.P.C. In view of the said decision of the Apex Court reported in 2010 STPL 1020 S.C., question of granting anticipatory bail even for limitation duration does not arise.4. Apart from that, the complaint allegations arc that, this petitioner along with A-l we...
Sri. G. Basavarajappa, Vs. Sri.Ranganna and Sri. Kareem Sab.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Though this matter is listed for orders for taking substitute service of notice on respondent No.2. Since 200G matter is pending for issue of process, hence the matter is considered on merit to find out whether the service of notice to respondent No.2 is necessary.2. This is claimant's appeal against the judgment and award in MVC No. 1119/1938 dated 25.8.2003 on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sira.3. Respondent No.1 is the claimant. He had sought for compensation for the injury sustained in an accident that occurred on 28.4.1998. It is alleged that, respondent No.1 was walking on the left side of the NH-4 in front of Taluk Office, Sira. At that time, one Yezdi motorcycle bearing No.MES.1960 came in a high speed and dashed against him, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital at Sira. Where he was inpatient for 9 days and spent about Rs.8.000/- towards medical expenses. He alleged that, he is working as Villag...
Fazalur Rahman. S/O Abdul Sammad. Vs. State of Karnataka, by J C Nagar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri. M.S.Rajendra Prasad for the petitioner and learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent State.2. The complaint allegations are that, the complainant is said to have taken Rs.50.00 lakhs from KFC and the loan was not repaid in time and it amounted to Rs. 14.00 crores. The petitioner assured the complainant that the petitioner knows many ministers. MLA's and police officials and he would see that the matter is settled at Rs.3 crores and accordingly took the said amount, from the complainant and thereafter returned only Rs. 1.00 crore to the complainant and when the complainant asked for the remaining Rs.2.00 crores, this petitioner is said to have abused and threatened the complainant.3. Though petitioner's counsel submitted that the case may attract 138 proceedings or civil suit between the parties, having gone through the complaint allegation. I am of the view that this is not a fit ease to grant anticipatory bail. For the above reasons, the petition is r...
M/S Gransilica Enterprises. Vs Sn.Aiase GowdA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. The impugned order of dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution dated 30.11.2010 is recalled. The matter is restored on board. Misc.Crl.No.5390/2010 is allowed.2. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the XIX Addl. CMM., Bangalore, in C.C.No.3035/2004 dated 28.7.2008. Where in the trial Court while dismissing the complaint filed has formed an opinion that, the complainant has failed to prove the existence of liability and also issuance of cheques by the accused to the complainant to discharge his liability and accordingly, acquitted the accused.3. Heard.4. According to the appellant, the accused had issued two cheques for Rs.50, 0007- each towards the amount borrowed.5. It appears, there is a transaction between the appellant and the accused in respect of supply of materials on credit basis. As per the decision rendered in Rangappa v. Mohan reported in AIR 201O SC 1898. It is for the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheques were not issued towards a l...
K M Dharmesh Babu Alias Babu. S/O PapannA. and L Ramesha @ Jogappa Ali ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Heard petitioners counsel and learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent-State.2. Submission of the petitioners counsel is that, the petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 and their names are not found in the FIR. Secondly, accused nos.2 and 5 have been released on bail by this court and the petitioners stand in a better footing than A-2 and A-5 and therefore petitioners also are granted anticipatory bail.3. The other submission made is that, the FIR was registered two years after the alleged incident, which is said to have taken place during 2008. Since this court has granted bail to the aforesaid persons, these petitioners are also therefore being given the same benefit and as such, without going to other aspects of the matter, I pass the following order.4. The petition is allowed subject to following conditions:1. In the event of the arrest of petitioners by the concerned police in connection with Cr.No.185/10, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for...
Smt. Lalitha W/O Siddaraiu, and anr. Vs. Karnataka State Co- Operative ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. The petitioners in W.P No.45382/2004 (GM RES) are before this Court in this infra-Court appeal claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2005. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has declined to grant the relief sought in the petition, but has reserved the liberty to approach the appropriate forum as provided under Section17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' for short).2. The brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal alone are noticed. In this regard, it is seen that the appellants and the second respondent-Cooperative Bank entered into certain loon transaction which ultimately resulted in the issue of notice dated 02.09.2004 under Section 13(2) of the Act and possession notice dated 02.09.2004 to the petitioners by the respondent. The petitioners responded to the same by their application dated 30.09.2004 by way of objection to the said...
Smt.Gopika Rani, D/O Late N.Kutty Krishnan Nair. Vs. Shrimath Ananthes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. This second appeal is by the tenant being aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below dated 20.09.2010 passed in R.A. No. 120/2005 passed by the Is' Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore in confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2005 passed in O.S.No.304/2004 by The II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Mangalore, in ordering for eviction and handing over the vacant possession of the suit premises and for payment of mesne profit.2. O.S.No.304/2004 was filed before the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn). Mangalore by the respondent-Board as per the resolution of the trustees of the Board seeking for eviction of the suit premises on two grounds, one being, it is needed for opening old age home and other is the appellant herein is a chronic defaulter in paying the rentals and also sought for payment of mesne profits @ Rs.25/- per day till the delivery of possession. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, an assurance was given by the board that the property in question wo...
Sunil Sharma S/O Ved Prakash Sharma, and anr. Vs. Union of India Minis ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. The petitioners have presented this petition in the nature of public interest, seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to the respondent to direct 'he committee which was appointed in terms of order No. 9/30/04-CRD DIR(MNIC) which had deliberated upon the pre-pilot specifications to change/amend and implement any new specifications only thereafter. The petitioners have sought for quashing the tender issued by the respondents for supply of machinery and also to appoint an enquiry committee consisting of technically qualified persons to go into the issuance of three million pilot cards and find out if they have adhered to the specifications of Technical Committee which was appointed in terms of the Government order.2. The respondents have filed their respective objection statement and opposed the petition. Apart from dealing with the aspect relating to specification and the durability of the card, the respondents have also contended that the petition does not merit, consideration as the...
Mohan Krishna Shetty S/O. Krishan Shetty, and anr. Vs. Dinakar Keshav ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Heard the learned Sr.counsel appealing for the petitioner and learned Sr.counsel appearing for the contesting first respondent who is a declared candidate in this case and whose election is challenged.2. this application is tiled under Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules for securing the records as mentioned in the application as it is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the said documents may be necessary for perusal of this Court.3. The application is objected by the first respondent by tiling statement of objections contending that only this Court after hearing the parties, as the evidence is already over, can order inspection only if primafacie case is made out and this Court comes to the conclusion, after hearing the final arguments, that inspection is to be permitted.4. In view of the above, at this stage, it is not necessary to go into the details of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as the Sr.Counsel appearing for the first...
Chinnamma and ors. Vs. H S Nataraj Son of Subbanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. Appeal is by the legal representatives of the 1st defendant before the trial court challenging the finding of the lower appellate court in respect of the suit property item Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. As per genealogy, Patel Veerappa is the propositus. During the year 1959, there was a division of the property among Patel Veerappa and his four children. Thereafter, it appears one of the sons of Patel Veerappa, filed OS 47/1979 seeking for division and for partition of the suit properties at items f to .V The matter was contested. However in the meanwhile, it appears there is also a Will executed by Patel Veerappa in favour of the 5 defendant who is none other than the son of the 2™ defendant. The trial court, while decreeing the suit in pan, in so far as the property covered under the Will at items 1 to 3 is concerned, held that the property in question - schedule property mentioned in the Will are not the joint family properties, however, accepting the signature on the Will b...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »