Karnataka Court March 2011 Judgments

K.S. Mahesh Vs. T.S. Rudrani and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR1567; 2011(3)KantLJ683; 2011ILR(Kar)2545

(This Crl. Petition is filed U/S.482 of CR.P.C by the Advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Prl. S.J., Tumkur in P.H.R. No…/07, as being illegal, arbitrary and to direct the Prl. S.J., Tumkur to reinstate the complaint filed before and to prosecute the same in Accordance with law.) Heard both the parties. 2. The petitioner herein as a public spirited person filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (for short the ‘Act’) before the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, alleging certain human rights violated by the persons named as accused herein. The learned Sessions Judge on presentation of the complaint, developed a doubt with regard to maintainability of the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the complainant regarding the maintainability of the complain...

Ramakrishna Vs. Ayesha Mohiddin

Court: Karnataka

(HRRP filed U/S 46(1) of K.R.Act, against the order dated: 31.5.2010 passed in HRC.No.95/2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, court of small causes, Bangalore, acting under Sec. 27(2)(o) of K.R.Act, ordering the respondent therein to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of petition schedule premises infavour of the petitioner therein with in 3 months from the date of this order, failing which, the petitioner therein is at liberty to seek delivery of possession.) This revision is against the order of eviction dated 31.5.2010 in H.R.C.No.95/2006 on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The factual matrix surfacing from the material on record is: a) Smt.Ayesha Mohiddin, the respondent herein, sought eviction of the petitioner invoking the provisions of clauses (a), (e) and (r) of Section 27(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity), on the premise she is the absolute owner o...

Sri.K.P.Jayachandra Hegde, and ors. Vs. the State of KarnatakA. Repres ...

Court: Karnataka

1) Though this petition is listed for admission today, having regard to the short question involved in this petition, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2) The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is. whether Respondent-3, the Range Forest Officer, Ramanagara Range, had jurisdiction to investigate the offences punishable under Sections 24(a), (f), (g), (gg). (h) and 73(d) of the Karnataka Forest Act. 1963 (for short the Act) and Rule 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short 'Rules'), without the order of the jurisdictional Magistrate in that regard ?.3) On the information furnished by the Forest Guards of Bidadi Forest, Respondent-3 registered the case in FOG No. 30/2006-07 for the aforesaid offences and proceeded to investigate the matter. There is no serious dispute that the offences alleged against the petitioners are all non-cognizable offences. As per Sec Ion 62-A of the Act. Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Forest Officer, may ex...

N Manjunath S/O.NagappA. Vs. Smt Pushpa W/O.Manjunath, and anr.

Court: Karnataka

1. Misc.Cvl.5453/2011 is filed by the appellant herein for condoning the delay of 83 days in filing the Miscellaneous Civil Application for recalling the order dated 1.9.2010.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. Guru raj Kulkarni.3. After careful perusal of the statements made in the accompanying affidavit, it is seen that the appellant has filed this application immediately when he came to know of the fact that the appeal had been dismissed and after obtaining NOC from the counsel who appeared earlier Sri. S.R. Sripad, he engaged the services of die present counsel Sri. Guru raj Kulkarni, and has presented this application. 11 is averred that the said delay is not intentional but the -same is due to bona fide reasons and that ii the delay in filing is not condoned, it would lead to hardship, inconvenience, whereas if the delay is condoned, no hardship will be caused to the respondent. Therefore, it is prayed to condone the delay.4. On perusal of the statements...

Sri. Chandra @ Chandrashekara R.V. Vs. State of Karnataka by by Puttur ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The complainant aged about 15 years is a resident of Papnur Village in Puttur Taluk and she was residing with her parents and family members and now and then she used to go to the house of the petitioner for watching TV.2. On 28.6.2010 at about 7.30 p.m., she went to the house of the petitioner and she found the petitioner alone in the house. She enquired him about his wife and he said that she was taking bath. ft. is in these circumstances that the petitioner held the hands of the complainant and when she resisted, he hugged her and by closing her mouth, threatened to kill her and dragged her to the ground and had forcible sexual intercourse. When the complainant cried for help, the neighbours, brother and sister-in-law came to the house, but the complainant as she was threatened did not disclose the incident on that day. It is on 1.7.2010 she informed about the incident to her parents and on their advise she filed a complaint to the police against the petitioner for the offence un...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri. Earesh @ Veeresh, and anr.

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is by the Insurer of offending vehicle challenging Ore award of the Tribunal on the ground of liability.2. Although this matter is listed in the orders list, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is admitted and taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.4. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are:That on 28.09.20()b when the claimant was proceeding in a tractor-trailer bearing registration No. KA-06/T-5210-1.1 as coolie from Melekote village towards NH-4 in the lands of Horakerappa the drive r moved the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident as a result the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, Sira seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.85,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. and directed the insurer of the tractor-trailer to pay compen...

M/S.Sri Kollaplri Mariamman Traders. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Co ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Petitioner has sought, for to quash the impugned order dated 30.07.10 passed by the El respondent: for a direction to the 1st respondent to confine the impugned order only against 4th respondent by issuing a writ and also to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure H and to direct the 2nd respondent to release the goods vehicle bearing No.TN02 AD 3699 and for such other orders.2. Heard3. The case arises out of intercepting the vehicle which was being sent from Tamil nadu to Karnataka for delivery of edible oils to the 4th respondent through the goods vehicle bearing No.TN02 AD 3699.4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is the responsibility of the respondent-authority, before registering, to verify the existence and authenticity of a dealer and now taking a different stand that no such business of the 4th respondent is in existence in the address furnished, is erroneous. It is a genuine transaction between the petitioner and the 4 respon...

LakammA. W/O. Late Magadappa, and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Of ...

Court: Karnataka

1. These appeals by the appellants are directed against the impugned judgments and award dated 22/02/2003 passed in LAC No. 140/1995 (in MFA No 4076/2003) and dated 11 /06/2003 passed in LAC.No. 189/2001 (in MFA No.4872/2004) on the file of the 11 Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-17). (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court' for short).2. The Reference Court by the impugned judgments and award, has fixed the market value at Rs.2,04,732/- per acre in both the petitions. Not being satisfied with the market value fixed by the Reference Court, the appellants have presented this appeal for further enhancement of comoensation. 3. The brief facts of the case arr:Land bearing Sy.No. 172/1 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas and 8 guntas of karab in MFA No. 4070/2003 and land bearing Sy.No 205/ 10(p} measuring 02 acres in MFA No.4372/2004. both situated at Kengeri village and Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, belonging to the appellants have been notified and acquired by the Slate in fa...

Chethan, S/O. MuniyallappA. Vs. State of Karnataka; by San Jay Nagar P ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The complainant Smt. Anjali is the wife of Dr. Sharath Kumar (the deceased) and it is on 10-04-2010 that she filed a missing complaint, in. crime No, 101/2010, wherein she alleged that her husband went to the Clinic at 10.30 a.m. on 09-04-2010 and at. 12.00 noon, he called her en mobile and requested to receive the gold jewellery from one Shailendra of Nirmal Jewellers and to give them to a. person who calls on her at the house. Within 5 to 10 minutes thereafter, one Shailendra of Nirmal Jewellers came to the residence of the complainant and gave a box containing gold jewellery and after five or ten minutes thereafter, a person came to the house and requested for the said jewellery. She delivered the box containing the jewellery to the person who came there and after the confirmation of handing over the box, there was no communication by her husband Sharath Kumar (the deceased). She tried to contact him on his mobile, but it was switched off. It is on 10-04-2010 that the relatives o...

Mittalal JaIn S/O Kevalchand. Vs. Smt Ramakka W/O Late S Basavachari.

Court: Karnataka

1. Petition is directed against the order dated 25.9.2010 in HRC.5/09 on the file of Judge, Small Causes Com (SCCH.7), Bangalore, dismissing the petition on two counts, viz., belated and no sufficient reasons assigned.2. The petition is posted for admission after notice to respondents.3. Heard. The petition is admitted and by consent taken up for final disposal.4. Contextual facts to which learned counsel on both sides have adverted to, are:Respondent herein-Ramakka initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Section 31C and 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, to evict the petitioner from the premises described in the schedule to the petition, on the premise that he is tenant under her from 1974 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- p.m. In this regard, she averred he was inducted by her husband-Basavachari and subsequent to his death, she having succeeded to the property as heir apparent, renewed the lease on payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance. Referring to subsequent...