Karnataka Court November 2011 Judgments
Y. Sampangi, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Director ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Sec.407 of Cr.P.C. to allow this petition and consequently transfer the Spl.CC No.146/09 pending on the file of the XXIII Addl. CC and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Urban Dist., Bangalore City to any other court in Bangalore or Sessions Judge in any other District having jurisdiction to try the offence under Secs.7, 8, 13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 6, 1998.) 1. This petition is filed seeking to transfer the case in Spl.CC No.146/2009 pending on the file of XXIII Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is the sitting MLA of KGF Assembly Constituency and a case under Sec.7, 8, 13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered against him which case is now pending before the aforesaid court. It is the contention of the petitioner that he appeared before the court on 28.10.2011 and he was t...
Tag this Judgment!Sujatha Prabhakar and Another Vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Dbs Finance Ltd., ...
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
A.M. Bennur, Member, J. 1. This appeal is filed U/s 15 of the C.P Act 1986 by the complainants in complaint No.169/2009 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Shimoga being aggrieved with the order dated 04/03/2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The husband of the 1st complainant and Father of 2nd complainant in order to purchase the vehicle availed the loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from Ops 1 to 3 repayable in 48 EMIs at the rate of Rs.16,200/-. He took the insurance policy from OP4 covering personal accident and paid the necessary premium. The said policy carried an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in case of personal accident, death or injury etc. On 27/02/2008 the husband of the complainant J.Prabhakar died in a road accident. Immediately an intimation was sent to Ops 1 to 3, requesting them to forward the claim petition to OP4. The Ops 1 to 3 are the sister concern of OP4. But no settlement is made in pursuance of the said policy issued. The repeated requests and demands made by th...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Srihari Reddy. Vs. Sri K Prabhakar Reddy So Sri Sundararama Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
ORDER 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 [CrPC] by the second accused CC No 18762 of 2010, on the file of Court of XII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore city, wherein first, accused being a private limited company - a corporate body - and not represented by any named person, and the second accused being the managing director of lirsf accused-company and therefore the second accused acting as accused 1 and 2. is directed against the judgment, and order dated 20-10-201 I passed in Crl Appeal. No 229 of 2010, on the file of Addl Sessions Judge and presiding officer. Fast Track Court-I, Bangalore, allowing the appeal preferred under Section 374(3) CrPC in part and modifying the order of sentence dated 7-3-2011 passed in CC No 18762 of 2010. 2. A private complaint, filed under Section 200 CrPC by the respondent herein for punishing the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N...
Tag this Judgment!Wireless And#8211; Tt Info Services Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
(These writ appeals are filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P.Nos.7162/2009 and 7472-73/2009 dated 25/11/2010.) (These writ appeals are filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P.No.12368/2009 dated 25/11/2010.) (These writ appeals are filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P.Nos.7165/2009 and 7474-84/2009 dated 25/11/2010.) (These writ appeals are filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P.Nos.8133-8134/2009 dated 25/11/2010.) (These writ appeals are filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P.Nos.7163 and 7487-92/2009 dated 25/11/2010.) (These writ appeals are filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P.No19530/2005 dated 25/11/2010.) (These writ appeals are filed u/s 4 of the Karnata...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Lohith Manohar Vs. State by Rammurthy Nagar Police Station, Rep b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
(Prayer: This Crl.P. Filed U/s.482 Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order in C.C.No.22838/10 dated 9.3.11 passed by the X ACMM, Bangalore and also the order dated 20.7.11 in Crl.R.P.No.25033/11 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and P.O., FTC-III, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore) 1. The petitioner in this case has called in question the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.2838/2010. The order of the learned Magistrate reads thus: “The accused is directed to give his voice sample recording on the next date of hearing. The I.O. is directed to make arrangements for obtaining voice recording of the accused, before the court, on the next date of hearing.” This order has been challenged by this petitioner before the learned Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.25033/2011 and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 20.07.2011 has rejected the r...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Prakash and Another Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
(These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 18.10.2011, etc.) In these cases, the petitioners have called in question the validity of the order at Annexure ‘F’ dated 18.10.2011 whereby the first respondent has stayed the meeting convened by the 4th respondent for consideration of the motion of no confidence against the President and the Vice-President of the Town Municipal Council, Tiptur (‘TMC’ for short). 2. The petitioners are the members of the TMC, Tiptur. The petitioners along with certain other members of the TMC constituting more than one third of the whole number of Councillors submitted a representation to the President expressing want of no confidence in him and the Vice-President as per Annexure ‘A’ dated 17.8.2011. Since the President failed to convene a special general meeting for consideration of the said motion of no confidenc...
Tag this Judgment!Thippeswamy So.ChannabasappA. Vs. Parvath Mma Wo. Late Honnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. This appeal has come up for admission. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. Appellant is the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27-7-2007 made in R.A.No.67/2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)' Challakere, confirming the judgment end decree dated 19-8-2006 made in O.S.No. 10972001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC. Challakere, whereto the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, filed this appeal. 3. Initially the plaintiff filed the suit seeking for partition and separate possession of the half share in the suit; schedule properties. Alter the death of defendants No.l and 2, the plaintiff got amended the plaint and also sought for declaration declaring that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties as he was only surviving co-parcener. In the plaint, he has contended that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Late Rudrappa who is the father of defendants 1 and 2. Plainti...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rama Krishna Reddy Vs. Vyalikaval House Building Co-op Society Ltd.
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
K. Ramanna, President: 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant seeking enhancement of rate of interest awarded from 9% to 18% from respective date made by him till realization by modifying the order dated 6.7.2010 passed by 2nd Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Forum in Complaint No. 945/2010. 2. In pursuance of the notice issued to the respondent, the respondent appeared through a Counsel and resisted the appeal contending that the District Forum has rightly quantified the compensation and directed the respondent to refund the amount with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. In this appeal we have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the records. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the District Forum is justified in awarding the interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization? 4. We have carefully examined the ...
Tag this Judgment!M K Jagadeesh Vs. the District and Sessions Judge and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
(Prayer: These Writ Petition are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare and strike down Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of the Persons appointed to the State Civil Services with the benefit of Rural Weightage (Special) Rules 2003 vide Annexure-G published in the notification bearing No. DPAR 58, SRR 2003, Bangalore, dated 12-11-2003, as unconstitutional, unenforceable and void and as been violative of articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.) 1. Unfortunately, even after the Supreme Court, twice clarifying the legal position, the confusion persist in deciding the seniority of persons and there is an attempt to scuttle the judgment of the Apex Court being implemented in letter and spirit. Therefore, all these disputes have to be resolved in the background of what the Apex Court has said and on the basis of the interpretation to be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court, which is applicable to the facts of this ca...
Tag this Judgment!Christopher Karkada, Bangalore and Others Vs. Church of South India, R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2011
1. The appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this Regular First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing their suit. Respondents 1 to 3 have also preferred a Cross Objection challenging the finding of the trial Court on issue Nos.12, 21, 23 and additional issue No.6. 2. The suit file under Section 92 of CPC is for settling a scheme for the proper and due administration and management of the properties of the United Basel Mission Church in India, South Kanara and Coorg, in respect of the plaint A, B, C, D and E Schedule properties and for other consequential reliefs. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. PLEADING 3. The case of the plaintiffs is as under:- The United Basel Mission Church in India of district of South Kanara and Coorg, for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘UBMC’, is fully evolved evangelical Protestant Christian Church. It is an autonomous administrative unit, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »