Karnataka Court May 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A.R. Viswanath and Others Vs. the Deputy Commissioner Hassan District ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-23-2011
(Prayer: These Petitions are Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India, Praying To Quash The Order Dated 14.9.2010 Vide Annexure-C Passed By The First Respondent As The Same Is Illegal And Unsustainable In Law And Etc.,) 1. Sri D C Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that while the petitioners had already undertaken to vacate the subject land and hand over possession to the revenue authorities after harvesting the crop and further submits that subsequent to the order dated 11-1-2011, reading as under: In these writ petitions, at the instance of the purchasers of granted land and which transaction is hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short ‘the Act’], what is questioned is the order of the Deputy Commissioner reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner who had rejected the application, on the ground that no records were available in...
international Society for Krishna Consciousness, Mumbai Having Its Bra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-23-2011
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 CPC, against the Judgment and decree dated 17.04.2009 passed in O.S. No.7934/2001 on the file of the IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, partly decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.) 1. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.4.2009 in O.S.No.7934/2001 passed by the learned IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and injunction and dismissing the counter claim of defendants for decree of permanent injunction. 2. Appellants are defendants 1 to 4, first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 8 are defendants 5 to 11 before the Trial Court. In this judgment, for convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. Wherever there is underlining, it is ours. 3. It is the case of plaintiff that Srila Prabhupada, a disciple of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu preached, pr...
A. Aravind Vs. A. Arun and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-23-2011
(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Sec. 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 25.10.2005 passed in MVC No. 2834/99 on the file of Addl. Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. Claimant has filed this appeal being not satisfied with the order and award passed by the MACT., Bangalore dated 25.10.2005 IN MVC No.2834/1999. 2. Appellant was the claimant in the aforesaid claim petition. He filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.32,30,000/- with interest on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 27.4.1999 at about 6-40 a.m. he was proceeding to Bangalore City from Nagarabhavi Extension as a pillion rider on a motor cycle No.KA-02-K-5396 driven by his brother. When the motor cycle reached 5th main road 7th Cross, Chamarajpet near .T.R Mill lorry bearing No.MYH-3041 was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and ne...
Ms Mfar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms Jalan Intercontinental Hotels P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-17-2011
ORDER 1. Petitioner instituted A.A. No. 25028/2011 invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore arraying the respondent as party defendant, for an order of in junction restraining the respondent from changing the nature of work done by the petitioner on the project site either by further construction or by modification or alteration until work done by the petitioner is measured certified and amount due is paid. 2. Petitioner filed I.A. No, J. for an ad-inlerlm order of temporary injunction of the like nature and while I .A. No. 2 for an ad-interim Order ex-parte temporary injunction to restrain the respondent and its contractors, officers, employees, agents, representatives etc. from using, employing or operating the Schedule-B Property (being details of equipment, machinery and materials). The Trial Court by order dated 7.4.2011 ordered LA. No. 2 and issued an ad-interim exparte temporary injunction unti...
Mr. Avinash S/O Mr. Suresh Vs. State of Karnataka, by Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-12-2011
(This Writ Petition (HC) is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ or order in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the corpus of the detenue Mrs. Sanghavi before this Court. Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondents to produce Ms. Sanghavi (hereinafter referred to ‘as the girl’) before this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the resident of Sudhamanagar at Bangalore and knew the girl for the last two to three years and they were in love since two to three months, but their parents did not approve their marriage. Therefore, they left Bangalore and got married on 2.3.2011 in a Temple at Tali Village, Tenkanakote Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu. After the petitioner came to know that the father of the girl lodged a missing complaint with Wilson Garden P...
Sri Ravi, So. Nagaraje Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.7 in Cr. No. 12/11 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 395. The petitioner is not yet arrested. 2. The prosecution case is that on 20-01-2011 while the Complainant Police Officers were on rounds they found some persons sleeping near water Tanker. Ten to fifteen persons allegedly armed with objects like, clubs and other, forcibly committed theft of 120 cement bags out of 200 gags stored on the premises. 3. Identity of the persons was not known as case came to be registered against unknown offenders and during investigation it found they are involved in committing such an offence and on that basis they are arrested. 4. As could be seen from the report ten to fifteen persons are alleged to have committed an offence and it is only subsequently that their names are incorporated. The implication of petitioner is on the basis of the statement given by the co-accused. In the circumstances, petitioner could be admitted to b...
M.Gafoor, So. Maimad Ali. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act is invoked against the petitioner to indict him along with one more person by name - Noushad. He is not yet arrested. The prosecution case is based on the report submitted by the Forest Officials on 11-10-2009 alleging that on receipt of credible information when they were checking movement of vehicles, they found Maruthi Van bearing registration No. KA-03 M-3974. When they signaled it to stop, the driver defied them. However, they followed and when they intercepted the vehicle, the occupants, driver and another person made good their escape. During search they found schoo1 bag containing 8 kgs. sandal wood billets and thus case was registered. 2. Accused No.1 - Noushad came to be arrested and on whose statement petitioner is also arraigned as accused. Thus, implication of the petitioner is on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. The offence alleged is under the Forest Act and if proved guilty, he may not be visited with punish...
Smt.Nafeesa, Wo. Sri Syed Rafiq Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6 for principal offence punishable under Section 304, 143, 498A, 304B IPC and 3 & 4 Dowry prohibition Act apart from other charges. Apprehending arrest she seeks relief. 2. The substance of allegation against her is that on 05-02-2011 Tabasum W/o Haceebur Rahaman (accused No.1), gave a statement alleging she was harassed after marriage by his- husband and his relative in relation to demand of dowry and they continued to torture her physically arid mentally. Petitioner, who is her sister-in-law is alleged to have joined with others in perpetration of crueity continuously. She also referred to the overt acts of her husband and his another sister who allegedly poured kerosene and set her on fire. Her statement was treated as FIR in Cr. No.17/2001 and subsequent to it she died. It is along with others before learned Sessions Judge, who was Petitioner applied for grant of anticipatory bail liberal so far as the others are concerned, but...
Zaheer Alam Khan, So. Mehaboob Khan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6 facing charge for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, under investigation in Cr. No.294/2010. 2. It is alleged petitioner is doing business in a shop at Ummerkhyam Road at Mysore dealing in scrap and such other used items. On 24-12-2010 when the Complainant Chand Pasha went to the shop to collect money, the petitioner asked him to press the used perfume cylinder. He declined as he apprehended danger. However, petitioner is alleged to have persuaded him to do so and other persons on the job were engaged in the said work, which include a fourteen year old boy. 3. The prosecution case is at 2-00 PM there was explosion in the shop resulting in fire. Due to the fire accident four persons including a boy aged 14 years, suffered burn injuries. Despite treatment the victims died. The prosecution has held the petitioner responsible for culpable negligence as he had co...
Shri K.Nataraja, So. Kempanjaiah Vs. State by Holenarasipura Rural Pol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.! in Cr. No.28/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 409, 420, 471, 463, 466, 468 of IPC and Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Hdenarasipura, in which he alleged that the petitioner while working as Village Accountant had connived with other accused and manipulated records thereby enabled the other accused to usurp certain lands and also to concoct entries for sale of land which has agrarian character. The main allegation is petitioner has mutated records relating to the lands illegally and thereby committed forgery and other offences. 2. Case's under investigation. Prosecution does not dispute that the authority to grant permission for disposal of agricultural land for non-agricultural use is Tahsildar himself. It is also seen that he in the instant case granted such permission. 3. Be that as it may, petitioner is undoubtedly, combatant Official of the Governmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »