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.
Ms. Shanthi Charitable Trust Vs. State Bank of India and anr
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Section 397 Cr.P.C. is invoked by the petitioner to question the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District in C.Mis.No.22/2011 for evicting petitioner for delivery of possession to respondent 2. Petition is listed for orders after notice to the respondent Bank. 3. Issue in limine is jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore; Rural District ever the property in question relating to which coercive process for evicting the occupants is issued in terms of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is brought into play. 4. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that under Section 14, there is no reference to the Chief Judicial Magistrate except Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate, who are clothed with the power of issuing coercive process like granting police help for enforcing the o...
Sri. A.Manoj Kumar, So. Arjun Lai JaIn and anr Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. These two petitions are by the accused arraigned for offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 363, 170 & 395 of IPC in Cr.No.55/11 on the file of the respondent-police. 2. Petitions are clubued and disposed of by this common order. 3. The substance of allegation on the basis of which they were arraigned reveals, the complainant Shanthilal was travelling in a passenger bus with the jewelry. The petitioners along with others are alleged to have followed the bus in a white Ambassador car. When the bus reached Borehosahalli gate near the Madikeri road, the accused obstructed the way for the bus. They waylaid the bus and holding threat to the passengers, the complainant was taken into their car from the KSRTC bus No.KA-09 F-4455. After driving for sometime, they snatched the jewelry bag from the complainant and cash and they left the complainant at some place. In this manner, the dacoity was committed. In the report, six persons were alleged to have committed the offences...
Sri Shantharaju So. Sri MariswamappA. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and 'be furnish' -Special .Government counsel for the respondents. 2. The matter lies in. short compos. Hence, with the Consent of the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. The challenge in this writ, petition is to the order passed by the Karnataka Appllate Tribunal in Revision Petition No. 11/ 11 rejecting the prayer made for grant of an interim order of stay. 4. The petitioner who is the revision petitioner before the tribunal has challenged the order passed by the is respondent - Assistant Commissioner, SangaJere South Sub-Division, Bangalore rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Tahsildar. The Tahaildar ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premised in his occupation -and has directed demolition of the same holding., that it had been constructed by erector Which the Government land. 5. The grievance of the petitioner before the appel...
Shaik Fahed Ahmed, Son of Shaik Altaf Ahmed and ors. Vs. Mrs. Mariam F ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1) In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought for quashing the entire p rocordings in C.Mis.86/2010 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-V, Bangalore. 2) First petitioner is the husband, Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 arc the parents-in-law of the respondent, while petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 are the elder sister and younger brother respectively of the 1st petitioner. The respondent has filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005. (for short, the 'Act') seeking protection order as contemplated tinder Section 18 of the Act, Maintenance Order under Section 20 of the Act and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act, against the petitioners herein in C.Mis. No.86/2010. Upon presentation of the said petition, the learned Magistrate ordered registration of the case and directed issue of notices to the petitioners herein as provided by Section 13 of the Act, Upon receipt of the notice issued, t...
J. Lokesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. The petitioner is in judicial custody after arrest, during investigation in Crime No.44/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376 of IPC on the basis of the report submitted by one Vasanth, uncle of a minor girl by name Baby Shalini. His attempt before the jurisdictional Court failed as the Investigating Officer has raised charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 also. 2. The State has been given opportunity to file counter, which is not done. But the learned Government Pleader Sri. Raja Subramanya Bhat has, on the basis of the material, opposed bail. 3. Heard. 4. From the report, it is noticed that the victim is said to be under 18 years and a student of II PUC in Fathima College. It is alleged that on 24.2.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. she left the house to attend the college but did not return and attempts to trace her were futile. Later, the complainant and her parents, on suspicion that the petitioner may be involved in her disappearance, contacted one...
M/S Shanti Charitable Trust Vs. State Bank of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Section 397, Cr. P.C. is invoked by the petitioner to question the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District in C.Mis. No. 22/2011 for evicting petitioner for delivery of possession to respondent. 2. Petition is listed for orders after notice to the respondent Bank. 3. Issue in limine is jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District over the property in question relating to which coercive process for evicting the occupants is issued in terms of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) is brought into play. 4. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that under Section 14. there is no reference to the Chief Judicial Magistrate except Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate, who are clothed with the power of issuing coercive process like granting police he...
Smt. Vanitha Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Petitioner is accused No.1. The Station House Officer, Kolar Rural Police Station is seeking to arrest her during investigation in Crime No.68/2011 which is for offence punishable under Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 read with 149 of IPC. 2. The petitioner is not yet been arrested. Apprehending arrest, she seeks direction. 3. From the case papers it is noticed that one V. Narayanappa lodged a complaint at the respondent police station alleging that he is a job card holder of Thondala Village, petitioner is a President of the Grama Panchayat while accused Nos.2 to 8 are the members occupying different positions. They all conspired to fabricate documents so as to enable withdrawal of money, thereby to make unlawful gain and cheat the State exchequer. On this basis, FIR was registered in Crime No.68/2011 and Investigating Officer is seized of the matter. During investigation, he is seeking to arrest them. 4. The main allegation is that the complainant did ...
Shivappa O.N. Vs. State by Sub-inspector of Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Offences punishable under Sections 408 and 468 of the IPC are the charges for which Crime No.6/2011 is registered against the petitioner. He is sought to be arrested during the investigation. 2. The case is based on the reports of the Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Bhadravathi alleging that the petitioner was a Clerk in the Bank entrusted with the property, which includes cash. He is alleged to have withdrawn amounts from Account No.987522401351 and transferred it to the account of one Hanumanthappa maintained in the Branch. By doing so, he is alleged to have misappropriated sums of `13,606/-, `24,959/-, `29,973/- and `42,114/- and on such fraud being detected, he has reimbursed the same to the Bank. 3. The Investigating Officer has registered the complaint against the petitioner and is now seeking to arrest him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the complaint where the complainant has himself mentioned that the petitioner has confessed to the alleged crime...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›