Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments
Sri Narasimhaiah @ Dekanna, and ors. Vs. the Special Deputy Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Misc. W. 900 of 201 1 by persons who claim to be legal heirs of original petitioner No.9[b]. namely, L Krishna Murthy who have filed the application for coining on record in place of L Krishna Murthy for the reason that L Krishna Murthy passed away on 11.1.2011.2. Application is not opposed by any of the parties to the present petition.3. Misc. W. 900 of 201 1 is allowed.4. Sri. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners to amend the cause title to indicate the change in terms of this order.In WP Nos. 2447-74 of 2010:5. These writ petitions, questioning the legality of the order dated 11-12-2009 passed by the first respondent special Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Karnataka (Charitable and Religious) Inams Abolition Act. 1955, had been heard extensively before issue of rule and which had been heard farther in the morning session, are now sought to be withdrawn as per the submission of Sri Shanmukhappa. learned counsel for the petitioners.6. A memo, signed by M/s Sh...
Tag this Judgment!itc Limited Corporate Head Quarters, and ors. Vs. Union of India by It ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ to declare Section 2(e)(v) of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short "the Public Premises Act") as substituted by Amending Act 22 of 1999 as null and void, to quash the order dated 12.8.2002 passed by the fifth respondent as per Annexure-U, to quash the notice dated 19.11.2001 as per Annexure-Q and to declare the entire proceedings before the fifth respondent .is without jurisdiction and for other reliefs. 2. I he subject matter of this writ petition is property bearing No.25, Sankey Road, Bangalore (hereinafter called as 'schedule property"). The schedule property originally belongs to one Aga Ali Askar and he executed a Will on 29.10.1880 and Codicil on 22.6.1887 bequeathing the schedule property for the benefit of Muslim community and the same had become a Wakf property. On coming in-o force of the Wakf Act. 1954 the schedule property was included in the list of Wakfs notifie...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Manjula, W/O Prakash Kumar. Vs. the State of KarnatakA. Through th ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Heard petitioner's counsel and the learned Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondent-State.2. The petitioner is before this court seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No. 19309/2009 on the file of the V-Addl. Civil. Bangalore, (Crime No. 359/2009 of Basaveshwaranagara Police Station).3. The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that, the petitioner has been residing alone following her husband having given her cruel treatment and she was also harassed by the neighbours and hence she gave a complaint to the police. But suddenly, a case has been registered against the petitioner by the police on the complaint, lodged by her neighbour and the said complaint is a false one and, therefore, the proceedings be quashed.4. Having thus heard the petitioner's counsel and after going through the material placed by the petitioner, the complaint lodged by one Raghu Kumar shows that this petitioner went to the complainant's house on 7.8.2009 and threatened the inmates and al...
Tag this Judgment!P.H. Ramesh @ Travels Ramesh. S/O P HarvegowdA. Vs. State of Subramany ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Heard petitioner's counsel and learned Addl. S.P.P for the State in respect of bail sought by the petitioner who is A-2 and the allegations against the accused persons are that, they have caused death of one Nagabhushan and the offences alleged against the accused persons are under sections 143, 302, 201 r/w section 34 of the IPC.2. Submission of petitioner's counsel is that, this petitioner is not involved in the act of committing the death of Nagabhushan and therefore the petitioner be released on bail as he is in custody for more than one year.3. However, submission of learned Addl. S.P.P for the State is that, statement of the witnesses CW-5 and other witnesses reveal that this petitioner along with A-4 took the deceased Nagabhushan on 6.2.10 and assaulted him and then, when the deceased was in an unconscious state, he was taken further place and together committed the murder of deceased Nagabhushan.4. Though submission made by the petitioner's counsel is that, it was A 1 who is...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Aarti Mukund Pardhanani D/O Sri M.B.Pardhanani. Vs. M/S Mac Charl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. These two company petitions are filed under Section 155 of the Companies Act 1956 seeking an order to rectify the register of members of first respondent - company by deleting the names of respondents 2 and 3 and to show the name of petitioners as the owner of equity shares of the company.2. The first respondent is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 28.9.1979. The object of the first respondent company is 10 carry on the business of hotel, restaurant etc. Petitioner in Co.P.No. 109/1987 and the second respondent are brothers. Second respondent was the Chairman of the first respondent company and petitioner was the Managing Director of the Company. According to respondents 2 and 3 the petitioner clandestinely played a fraud on them. Petitioner by making a false representation secured blank share transfer forms for effecting transfer of shares from the name of respondents 2 and 3 to the fourth respondent - M/s Kapi Investment Ink Ltd after securing ...
Tag this Judgment!T.Veeranna, S/O Late Thippaiah, and ors. Vs. G. K. Venkatarayappa, S/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Heard both sides in respect of the petition filed wherein the order passed by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Crl.R.P.No.9/2010 is called in question.2. The submission of the petitioners' counsel is that all application filed by the petitioners for exemption from appearance was allowed by the trial court. But the same was questioned before the revisional court by R-1 and, in turn, the said court set aside the order of the trial court and directed the petitioners to move for bail as well as an application seeking exemption. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition filed before this court in Crl.P.No. 1781/2009 was disposed of by observing that, depending upon the opinion of an expert to be secured to ascertain the fact as to whether the death note was in the hand writing of the deceased or not the trial court thereby, in the light of the opinion as regards the death note, can pass necessary orders for discharge and in the meanwhile, the petitioners are also given ...
Tag this Judgment!H P Chandrshekar, and ors. Vs. State by Extension Police. Hassan.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. These two petitions are by the accused persons who are A-4 and A-5 respectively and A-4 seeks anticipatory bail, whereas A-5 seeks regular bail.2. The allegations against the accused persons, numbering five in all, are that they were found in possession of brown sugar weighing 870gms.3. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that, the petitioner who has sought anticipatory bail is a Village Accountant and he was not involved in the alleged offence. Merely because someone ran away from the spot, according to the police this petitioner has been suspected to be the person involved with the other accused persons and moreover the other accused persons who are on bail are A-3 and A-6. Therefore, petitioner also be released on anticipatory bail as nothing was found with him.4. As far as the petitioner A-5 for regular bail is concerned, submission made is that the other accused referred above are on bail and nothing was found in possession of this petitioner, he also be released on bail....
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar, S/O Late Mohan. Vs. State by Cottonpet P.S., Bangalore.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by him under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the submission made by the petitioner's counsel is that, the petitioner is said to be one of the accused persons against whom a case is registered under Sections 120(b), 121 and 121A of the I.P.C. and Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and he moved the trial court under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet by the I.O. within 90 days as required under law. However, the trial court dismissed the said application on the footing that the I.O. has sought time extension beyond 90 days upto 180 days.2. Referring to the aforesaid factors and also relying on the decision of this court reported in 2004 Crl.L.J. 1033 and of the Madras High Court reported in 2005(2) Crimes 533, the submission made is that, on the date of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Sri.M.C.Mallesha S/O Shakuni GowdA. Vs. Smt. Siddagangamma W/O Late Er ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. The owner of uninsured vehicle has filed this appeal to set aside the award made by the Tribunal.2. I have heard Sri S.Raiu. learned counsel for appellant and Sri Girish B.Baladare. learned counsel for claimants.3. The two grounds urged in this appeal are:-I. The deceased was aged about 70 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal was notjustified in determining his age as 45 years.II. The Tribunal was not justified in determining income of deceased at Rs.4.000/ per month.4. Before adverting to the grounds urged as afore started. it is necessary to state certain admitted facts.5. It is not in dispute that appellant herein was the registered owner of motor cycle involved in the accident and it was not insured as on the date of accident. Therefore, appellant is liable to compensate the claimants. It is also not in dispute that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA- 13-Q-2072. Therefore, this question need not be recon...
Tag this Judgment!Sri C.SomasekharA. Kas S/O.Late J.Vchikkaveerappa, and ors. Vs. Sri S. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties at some length, we were constrained to peruse the complaints made by the family of deceased S.N.Ramegowda. It is significant to notice the following specific allegations leveled by the son of the petitioner in his complaint available on the record of the instant case at Annexure-B wherein he inter alia refers to the following factual position:"4. My father was working as Tahsildar. Bangalore South Taluk between 1.3.1997 and 16.12.1997. At that time he was looking after the work of Khatha transfer in respect of lands etc and he was doing so under the supervision of C.Somashekar who was the special Deputy Commissioner. On many occasions Special Deputy Commissioner was giving oral instructions in respect of change of khatha and my father was telling him that unless written orders are given, he would not obey the oral orders. In respect of a land of 13 acres in Roopena Agrahara village of Bangalore South Taluk, which belonged to K.V...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »