Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments

Kilagere Haalu UthpadakarA. Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Sec ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner. Co-operative Society, registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, for short Act', having its area of operation as Kilagere Village, aggrieved by the registration of 3rd respondent, Co-operative Society, by order dt. 5/8/2010, Annex. D, of the 2nd respondent under the Act, has preferred this petition invoking Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the said registration and restrain the 3rd respondent from registering any society in contravention of Sec.4 and 17 of the Act.2. The petitioner asserts that it was registered as a Co-operative Society on 26/.1/1985- for encouraging milk production and dairy activities among the residents in and around Kilagere village, in a radius of over 2 to 3 kms. Kilagere village, it is stated, has 402 members from whom 600 litres of milk is collected. It is alleged that certain disgruntled members, due to political differences, secured registration of the 3rd respondent, Society, for Belakuppe village 1/2 k...

State by Banashankari Police. Vs. Sidda Reddy S/O Nagi Reddy.

Court: Karnataka

1. Criminal Appeal No.45/2003 is by the State against the judgment of remand dated 19'1' September 2002 passed by the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge. Bangalore City in Criminal Appeal No.39/1999. reversing the judgment in CC.No.5353/199 3 dated 12.2.1999 on the file of II Addl. C.M. M., Bangalore.2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1045/2002 is by the accused against the very same judgment.3. Banashankari Police charge sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.4. Case of the prosecution is that, accused is the owner of Sri. Slddamma Siddareddy Kalyana Mantapa situated at Papaiah Garden. Banashankari 3rd Si ago Bangalore On the date of incident, son of PWs-1 and 2 had left the house at about 9 a.m. and while playing, he came in contact with a fence, which has been connected to electricity and as a result of the said negligence by the accused, the victim succumbed to injuries (electrocuted). PW-1 and PW-2 got the information of the accident and they...

Swamy @ Krishna, S/O Chottamare GowdA. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Kana ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard both sides in respect of bail sought by the petitioner who is A-1 in the case registered by the Kanakapura rural police for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and u/s 4 of D.P. Act.2. The complaint allegations in short arc that, the complainant's daughter by name Anukumari was the second wife of the petitioner herein and she was harassed by the petitioner and his family members including the first wife and petitioner's mother. On 12.5.209 the deceased was found hanging and the submission of petitioner's counsel is that the deceased committed suicide, therefore petitioner be released on bail as he is in custody of nearly two years.3. On the other hand, learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent-State submits that the medical report indicates that it was a case of homicidal hanging and number of injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. Under these circumstances, as regards the offences alleged, this is not a fit case to grant bail.4...

Sri Rakesh Sampath Shetty, S/O Sri .Sampath Anantha Shetty. Vs. the Fe ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2010 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Bangalore City, allowing the application filed by the respondent-Bank seeking the help of the jurisdictional police to take over the possession of the property which is the subject matter of mortgage for securing the loan advanced by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner.2. As per Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 thereinafter referred to as "the Act', for short), there is an alternative, efficacious remedy provided to the aggrieved person to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the measures initiated for taking over possession under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has to avail the said alternative remedy by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal.3. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is likel...

Vinaya Alias Gandhi, Son of Biligiri, Vs. State by Akkur Police Statio ...

Court: Karnataka

1. All these petitions are by the accused who are involved in Or. No. 188/10 for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC and the petitioners are A-12 (Crl.P.No.35/11), A-13 {Crl.P.No.518/11) and A-ll (CrLP.No.509/11). 2. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in respect of the alleged incident said to have taken place on 27.10.10 in the house of the complainant is, the accused persons are said to have assaulted Chikkegowda and caused some injuries and took away the gold and other ornaments and cash of Rs.25.000/- and also other articles. Submission made by the petitioners counsel In common is that these petitioners were not present when the alleged incident took place and moreover. A-13 is said to have given the information to other accused persons and A-12 is said to have given a weapon to other accused persons and as far as A-11 is concerned, only allegation against him is that, he also conspired with other accused in ensuring that...

Sri K Govinde Gowda Vs. Smt Akkayamma Wife of Late Shyamaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

RAM MOHAN REDDY, J.1. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, petitioner is permitted to cause notice on Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 by sub-service through paper publication in 'Samyukta Karnataka". Karmada daily, Bangalore edition on or before 28.2.2011 fixing the date of hearing as 22.3.2011.2. The application is ordered accordingly....

Renuka Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(3)KantLJ276; 2011(3)KCCR1744

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Praying to quash the orders of respondent No.2, 1 and the KAT, Bangalore, passed in Case No. R.A. 191/1996-96, case No. R.A. 66/2001-02 and passed in Revision Petition No. 304/2005, dated 10.1.2001, 7.3.2005 and 20.8.2010 respectively, and drop the proceedings in the interest of justice, the copies of the orders are produced at Annexures A, B and C and etc., Misc. W. No. 1238 of 2011 is filed under Order XIII Rule 1 of CPC for production of additional document. Misc.W. No. 1239 of 2011 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of writ petition.) 1. Whether a person like the petitioner has acquired good title, interest and what not, under two sale transactions of the same day, dated 19.4.1995 said to have been executed by respondents Nos.10 to 12 who in turn claim right, title and interest in the subject lands under a grant proceedings evidenced by a saguvali chit dated 5.9.1978 t...

M.K. Nachappa and Another Vs. Sir M M Aiyanna and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 7.72009 passed by the 2nd respondent Tahsilder, Virajpet, produced at Annexure A and etc.,) (Prayer: Misc.W. No. 10592/10 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of Writ Petition. (Prayer: Misc.W. No. 843/11 is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for direction.) 1. Writ jurisdiction has become a fertile area for frivolous, petty, undeserving matters to be brought and parked in the High Court which is nothing short of a gross misuse and abuse of the process of this Court. 2. The present writ petition does not project any different scenario. A dispute and tussle going on between the petitioner and the first respondent who are cousins and are war...

Sri Prakash, S/O Late Umapathi, and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Ne ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard both sides in respect of bail sought by the petitioners who are A-2 to A-4 in Cr.No.758/10 for the offences punishable under sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.2. Submission of the petitioners counsel is that, the petitioners were apprehended by the police merely on suspicion, bid it was A-1 who was the main person against whom the case ought to have been registered and the police, suspecting that the petitioners were also preparing for committing dacoity and planning to follow the lorry which was carrying copper, arrested the petitioners on 23.12.10.3. Stating that the petitioners have got permanent root in the place where, they are shown to reside, bail is sought.4. Submission pi learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent State is that, if the petitioners are released, they may abscond, therefore bail petition be rejected and moreover it was A-4 who was driving the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo which was seized by the police.5. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the nature of...

Smt. Balamma W/O Anthonappa, and anr. Vs. Smt. .Javamma W/O Souraj Ali ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.3953/10 on the file of the Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, aggrieved by the order dt. 13/1/2011, allowing plaintiffs LA.No.3 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint, have presented this petition.2. In the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the: plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the1st respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.3 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by adding paragraph No. 8(a). in the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that clue to oversight, one paragraph relating to clause of action, bonafide, skipped whale taking out the print, although the entire facts relating to the cause of action is set out in paragraph 7 of the plaint. That application was opposed by filing statement of objections of defendants 1,3 and 4, interalia contending that since the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, ought to be rejected ...