Karnataka Court October 2011 Judgments
Halappa Bharama Gavanale and Another Vs. the State of Karnataka, Repre ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
Suri Appa Rao, J 1. This appeal is filed under section 374 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th July, 2011 in S.C. No. 6/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi, whereby the appellants who are accused Nos.1 and 2 have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w section 34 of I.P.C., sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows: The 1st appellant – Halappa Bharama Gavanale is the father of 2nd Appellant – Rama Halappa Gavanale. The family of the deceased No.1 Kallappa owned a land in Hulloli, but he shifted his family to Umarani about 6 years back. The accused and the deceased owned sheep and the accused were grazing their sheep in the land of Thabagouda Shivagouda Patil – PW-9. The accused were ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax and Another Vs. Smt. Mukta Sridhar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
(Prayer: This Income Tax Appeal filed u/s 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 13.12.2007 passed in ITA.No.721/Bang/2006 for the Assessment Year 2000-01, praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No. 721/Bang/2006 dated 13.12.2007 confirming the orders of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Bangalore.) 1. I.T.A. Nos. 513/2008, 512/2008, 514/2008, 664/2008, 667/2008, 670/2008, 673/2008 and 511/2008 are directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’ dated 13.12.2007 passed in ITA Nos. 659 to 666/B/06. The above appeals pertain to different persons of the same joint family for different assessment years as detailed below: SNITA NO.ITA NO.Asst. YearAppellantRespondent1ITA667/2008659/B/062001-02DCIT,Central Cir. -2...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd Regional Office Subharam Complex Vs. Rangan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/s 30/(1) of WC Act against the order dated 28.08.09 passed in WCA/CR-59/2006 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. Tumkur District, Tumkur, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,45,689/-.) 1. Second respondent insurance company in CR.No.59/2006 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Tumkur has come up in this appeal challenging the order dated 28.8.2009 passed therein. Earlier when this appeal had come up for admission instead of admitting the same notice was ordered and lower court record was called for to consider the appeal for final hearing. Accordingly, when this matter came up today though it is listed for admission, since the lower court record is received and respondent/claimant is also duly served, with the consent of counsel for both parties the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are: First respondent herein who was claimant before Commissioner is sai...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Manjunath Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-2011
(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order passed by the R3 DTD 27.4.11 produced at Annex-F and etc.) 1. The Petitioner and the fifth respondent contested for Sunnadakoppa constituency to elect the Director to Shikaripur APMC. Pursuant to the calendar of events, the polling was held on 25.04.2011. The counting was commenced on 27.04.2011. The third respondent before commencing the counting, opened the ballot boxes. In the ballot boxes pertaining to Kadenanandihalli polling booth, it was found that there were 15 ballot papers pertaining to Kortagere constituency. This fact was apprised by the third respondent to 5th respondent who has consented and requested the third respondent to proceed with the counting ignoring the said irregularity and requested that 15 ballot papers should be kept separately and it should not be counted. The third respondent with the consent of both the contestants, proceeded with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hoornaz Banu Vs. the President Karnataka State Scheduled Caste and Sch ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned notice dt. 4.3.2010 at Ann-H and etc.) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (for short ‘’the Act’), the Respondent No.1/State Commission erred in registering a case, under Section 3(1)(iv), (viii) and (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’), in No,70/2010, against the present petitioners and passing an order of Status-quo to respect of the property. He submits that the property bearing No.148, situated at Sonnahalli. Further Extension, Bangalore was allotted originally in favour of one D.P. Malakondaiah. The allottee sold the property to Smt.Chinnamma, who gifted the property in favo...
Tag this Judgment!The State of KarnatakA. Vs. S.Siddaraju Son of Siddabasavaih
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. The State has filed this appeal against judgment of acquittal of respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. We have heard Sri.N.S.Sanmangiramaiah. learned Government Pleader for State arid Sri.B.Anand, learned Amicus Curiae for accused. We have been taken through evidence arid the i-npugned judgment. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: Tire accused is the husband of deceased Roopa. Their marriage had taken place about two years prior to 22.10.2000. PW.2-Doddamma. PW. 12-Siddarajamma are the eider sisters of deceased. PW.4-Gurusiddaiah is the husband of PW.2. PW.ll-Chikka Kalluriah is the father of deceased. After the marriage, the deceased stayed in the house of accused in his native place, Averahalli. Malavalli Taluk. Mandya District. After a period of one year the accused and deceased came to Bangalore and they were living in the house of PW"s.2 and 4. At the relevant time. PW.2 was working in a Garment fac...
Tag this Judgment!The Platform of Bel Ex. Employees, Rep, by the Chief Convenor and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
(Prayer: These Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, parying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.25280/2001 dated 03.01.2006.) 1. These appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.25280/2001 being aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2006, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to grant the prayer to quash Annexure – “A” in so far as it says that the benefit of weightage for service is limited to those on the rolls of the establishment on the date of signing the settlement. 2. The appellants herein filed W.P.No.25280/2001 averring that petitioner Nos.2 to 13 are the ex-employees of M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited and the first petitioner is the platform of M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited Ex-Employees Association. The main contention of the petitioners in the Writ Petition is that the petitioners, who were the workmen under the regular rolls of the respondents – company as on 01.01.1997 and continue t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Subhadra and Another Vs. M. Narasimha Murthy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2010 in OS 2074/2002 by the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.) Appeal is by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS 2074/2003 on 5.8.2010. Suit property is a part and parcel of the site said to have been allotted to the plaintiff by the Bangalore Development Authority in No.77, III Block, II Stage, RMV Extension, Bangalore. It is alleged by the plaintiff, having taken his signature and having created fraudulent documents by way of general power of attorney, the 1st defendant who is the wife of the 2nd defendant and sister in law of the plaintiff, got transferred the property in favour of the 2nd defendant. Though the transaction was not one for sale of immovable property nonetheless, the 1st defendant misusing the signatures, has got executed the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. S...
Tag this Judgment!The State of KarnatakA. Vs. K.A. Marsha So Amasegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The State has filed this appeal against judgment of acquittal of respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A. 304 -B IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. We have heard Sri.N.S.Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Pleader for State and the learned counsel for accused. The learned Government Pleader has taken us through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief, the ease of prosecution is as follows: Soubhagya @ Chandramrna (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was the daughter of CW.5-Kalegowda and PW. 16-Jayamrra. PW.3-Annayappa is the paternal uncle of deceased: PW.21 -Manjegowda is the younger brother of deceased; PW. 15-Kumaragowda is the husband of elder sister of deceased: PW. 1 7-Marigowda is the cousin brother of deceased; PW. 18-Kempegowda is the maternal uncle of deceased; PW.23-Mahalakshmi is the elder sister of deceased. 4. Before marriage, the marriage negotiatio...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Janardhana Son of Late Krishnappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents 1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused 2 & 3') for offences punishable under sections 498A & 304B IPC and also for offences punishable under sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Aci 2. We have heard Sri P.M.Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel for accused 2 & 3. We have been taken through the evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. Accused 2 & 3 and accused No. 1 were tried for offences punishable under sections 498A & 304B IPC and also for offences punishable under sections 3 & 4 of the Bowiy Prohibition Act. The learned trial Judge convicted accused No. 1 for offences punishable under sections 498A & 304B IPC and also for offences punishable under sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned trial Judge acquitted accused 2 & 3. Accused No. 1 had filed Criminal Appeal No. 1828/2005. This Court by judgment dated 09.09.2008 acq...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »