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.
Mr. Munegowda S/O Channappa, Vs. State of Karnataka by Sulibele Police ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1.Heard both sides in respect of the anticipatory bail sought by the petitioner who is one of the three accused persons against whom a case is registered in Cr.No. 142/09 by the Suiibele police for the offences punishable under sections 302, 304-3 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. In view of the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that the immediate cause for the deceased to commit suicide was on account of assault by the other accused persons A-2 and A-3 on the ground that the deceased was not doing the cooking(sic) work in the house and being unable to bear the said insult and also out of dejection, the deceased committed suicide.3. Petitioners counsel submits that, on the very same allegations made against the other accused persons A-2 and A-3, they were let on bail, one by this court; in CrLP.No.36/10 and another by the trial court in Crl.Misc.No. 12/10 and therefore this petitioner also be given the same relief on the ground of parity since...
Sri a Arjun, Vs. State of Karnataka, by Kolar Town Police.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. Heard both sides in respect of the bail sought by the petitioner who is said to be accused no.2 in the case registered against him and another accused in Cr.No. 168/10 by the Kolar Town Police for the offences punishable under sections 406. 465, 468, 471. 476 and 420 of IPC.2. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that, as this petitioner had only affixed his signature to a document, he cannot be denied anticipatory bail, although the main allegation is against A-l who is said to be the Manager of the co-operative Bank in question.3. On the other hand, submission of the learned Addl. S.P.P for the State is that, this petitioner joined hands with A-1 and ensured that despite discharge of loan by one Subramani, yet this petitioner executed a deed of redemption of mortgage in favour of Subramani who had never paid the loan. Moreover, the investigation is still pending and documents will have to be verified.4. Having thus heard both sides and on a perusal of the materials placed and...
Smt,anitha Ramesh @ K.J. Anitha W/O Sri .N. Ramesh Vs. Sri,k.J. Manjun ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1.The complaint m fifed fey the complainant, complaining disobedience of the interlocutory order passed by this Court on 24.06.2009 in MFA 1969/2009 by which a direction, was issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 to jointly pay Rs1,50,000/- each to the complainant through Pay Order or Bankers Cheque "drawn in respective names before 10* of every month. The said payment made shall be subject to the result of the suit. Therefore it is clear that the said order is passed in a pending proceedings and the said order is disobeyed which could be executed by the very court which passed the said order or by Civil Court by way of execution or any other manner prescribed under law2. Under those circumstances as there is Alternatives, efficacious remedy available, we decline to Entertain this petition3. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that such orders could be executed as held by Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs Sadruddin Hasan Ds.ya and another, reported in 2004(1) SCO 36...
Ajyaraniyanda Monnappa @ Rayi, S/O Late Somaiah, and Kudiyara Mohan @ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. Heard both sides in respect of the bail application filed by the accused nos. 1 and 2 against whom a case is registered in Cr.No.202/10 by the Madikeri Rural Police for the offences punishable under sections I2G-B, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and section 3 r/w 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.2. The prosecution case in short is that, there was a land dispute between the accused no. 1 and the deceased Ponnappa and in that background, A-l is said to have fired from a gun on deceased Ponnappa and his wife Shanthi when they were going in the motor cycle and following the said act, two of them died on account of the bullet injuries. As far as A-2 is concerned, it is the prosecution case that; he was also there with A-l when the incident occurred.3. Petitioners counsel submits that, A-2 had no role to play at all nor he has got any land dispute with the deceased and except the allegation that;, A-2 was also present along with A-l, no overt acts are alleged against A-2 and moreover, the cause of dea...
G N Ramu, S/O G Narayanaswamy. Vs. Prl. Secretary to Government Transp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. Petitioner has Sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the modification of the 7th Supplemental Reciprocal Transport Agreement entered into on 7.3.2008 between the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh as per S.88(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 by including the route Nagavalli to Hindupura via Tumkur, Gowribidanur, Manampalli and, to quash the 7th Supplemental agreement dated 7.3.2008 - annexure N issued by the 1st respondent.2. According to the petitioner, he had moved this Court based on the government notification at annexure H to include the route in the inter-state agreement from Nagavalli to Hindupur and also in this regard, mandamus was issued by this Court in WP 18314/2007 on 14.12.2007. Petitioner states, he had made representations on 2.11 2007 and on 13.11.2007 for inclusion of the route Nagavalli to Hindupur in the inter-state agreement at the time of issuance of final notification by filing objections to the government notification. According to him. Thi...
T.Anantha, S/O Late H.N.Thimmaiah. Vs. M/S. State Bank of Patiyala, an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. In this writ petition, a direction is sought by the petitioner against the 1st respondent not to take forcible possession of the property by dispossessing the petitioner resorting to the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act" hereinafter).2 The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant in occupation of the premises bearing No. 1/4-1 (Old No.B-4), 3rd Cross, S.R. Nagar in Ward No.77, Bangalore - 560 027. The property in question has been mortgaged in favour of the 1st respondent / Bank to secure the loan advanced by it. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the property who has borrowed the loan from the 1st respondent / Bank. The 1SI respondent has initiated proceedings by issuing notice invoking the provisions of Section13 of the Act. Apprehending dispossession from the Bank, the petitioner has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in I.R. Diary No...
Smt.Saroja W/O Sri.Srinivas. Vs. Smt.M.Jayalakshmi W / O Sri. Shivasha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. This is a claimant s appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Sri. R. Krishna Reddy learned counsel for appellant and Sri. Shankar Reddy learned counsel for insurance company.3. As per the averments of claim petition and evidence adduced by the claimant, she had suffered fracture of right fibula and fracture of 2nd and 3rd right metatarsals.4. It is the case of claimant that the accident occurred due to sudden burst of tyre and some metallic pieces hit the right foot of claimant and caused the above injuries. The first information relating to accident was lodged by the husband of claimant after a period of one month.5. In the evidence affidavit filed by filed by claimant, it is stated, when the bus bearing registration No.KA-O1/B-6939 reached near Kempegowda High School, the right side of rear wheel burst open and as a result of which the floor of the bus where claimant was sitting, ripped open and iron plate hit the right leg of the claimant and she has suffered afore...
Bhadrappa, S/O.ChannappA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA. Represented by S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. In this appeal, the appellant calls in question the order dated 13"' November 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the W.P. No. 13943/2005 filed by him challenging the order dated 5-2-2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, confirming the order dated 8-5-2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner restoring the land in favour of the 4th respondent, son of the original grantee.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: To an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.62 situated at Kodur village. Malur Taluk was granted in favour of A.K.Sadappa S/o. Dasappa as per the order dated 6-12-1944 under the Grow-More Food Scheme on temporary basis. Thereafter, the Tahsildar as per order dated 30-1-1964 confirmed the grant made earlier in favour of A.K.Sadappa and Saguvali Chit was issued to the said A.K. Sadappa on 14-9-1964 with a specific condition that the granted land should riot be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. The original grantee belonged to the de...
Smt.C.Parameshwari, W/O Sri.Cheziyan Vs. Karnataka State Transport Aut ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. Petitioner herein has sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order at Annexure 'E' passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 10.02.2010 in Appeal No.50/2007 and for such other reliefs.2. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent-KSTA has granted variation of the permit condition from Sundarapalyam to Panthanahalli and back, as prayed for by the petitioner after conducting joint survey extending the route by another 22,0Kms out of which, 8.0Kms. passes through the State of Andhra Pradesh and the terminal points being in the to state of Karnataka. However, the said permission of variation granted by KSTA has been struck down by the Tribunal on the appeal filed by the 2 respondent wherein the Tribunal has opined that, there is no inter-state agreement entered into and the route survey has not been conducted in the presence of the representative of KSRTC and also no counter signature is obtained.3. Heard.4. According to the petitioner's counsel,...
Jayaprakash. S/O Mogappa GowdA. Vs. the Senior Divisional Manager, and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Smt.Kavitha, learned counsel for the claimant and Smt. Harini Shivananda, learned counsel for the insurance company.3. As per medical records and evidence of PW2 Dr.K.C. Manjunath, the claimant had suffered closed fracture of left humerus and contusion over left trochantric area. The claimant was treated in Manjunatha Orthopaedic and Trauma Cenre at Hassan. At the time of accident, claimant was aged about 35 years. He has contended that he was an agriculturist holding lands in Hassan District and at the same time was working in a bakery called Maruti Manjunatha swamy Bangalore Iyengar Bakery, Kandikapalli. Bazar Road, Krishna District. Andhra Pradesh, which is almost at a distance of 800kms from Hassan. The claimant has also contended that he was working as bar bender.4. The Tribunal has not accepted this speculative evidence adduced by the claimant regarding his avocation and income. The Tribunal has taken hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »