Karnataka Court June 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.
State by Byappanahalli Police Station. Vs. Vasudev at Vasu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. This appeal is filed by the State represented by Byappanahalli Police, under section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, tfi S.C.No.683/2003. whereby the respondents/accused were tried and acquitted for offences punishable under sections 3. 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for offences punishable under sections 498A & 304B r/w section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, the State represented by Byappanahalli Police has preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: PWl-Narayana was an ITI employee and resident of Viveknagar, Bangalore. PW1 performed the marriage of his daughter Saraswathi with accused No. 1-Vasudev @ Vasu on 26.02.1999 at Kaiwara Temple, Chintamani Taluk, Chikballapur District. At the time of marriage, accused demanded a sum of Rs.60.000/- as dowry, apart from one necklace. Mangalya Chain to the bride ana one pair ...
Sri S.Seshachar So. Late Srinivasachar. Vs. the Government of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the preliminary notification dated 3/2/2003 [Annexure 'C'] and final notification dated 23/2/2004 [Annexure E'], passed by respondent No.2 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in the alternative, a direction is sought to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on par with the persons who filed writ petitions and S.L.Ps before this Court and before the Apex Court respectively. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.86, measuring 2 Acres 27 Guntas, situated at Rachenahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The said land was acquired by virtue of an order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, dated 30/1/1979 in Case No.AI, NT 105/77-78, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order being complied with by the petitioner. Ever since the regrant of the said land in favour of the petitioner, he is said to be in possessi...
Pioneer Wincon Private Limited. Vs. Ms. Kanna Holding Private Limited ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are calling in question the ex-parte ad interim order of temporary injunction granted on 08.04.201 1 till the next date of hearing on the plaintiff complying with certain conditions. 2. The matter is listed before the Court on the application filed by respondent No. 1 for vacating the interim order. As the matter lies in a short compass, the same is finally heard. Respondent No. 1 has filed the suit OS.No.25694/2011 seeking a declaration that defendant Nos. 1 & 2/petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 herein have no manner of right in respect of 24,97,475 shares (held in demat form) of Kerala Ayurveda Ltd., belonging to the plaintiffs associate company. They have also sought impermanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 St 2 from holding that they have a right in respect of t&e; said shares /vu application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein seeking interim injunction in the nature of direction Jo de...
Sri. K.G.Subhash, Son of Sri. K.V.Gopal. Vs. the State of Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
ORDER 1) Heard Sri. Bhagwat M.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the records made available. 2) In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner who has been arraigned as Accused No. 11 in C.C. No.5540/2008 on the file of the IV AC24M, Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections. 120-B, 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of IPC, has sought for quashing the criminal prosecution launched against him inter alia on the ground that, absolutely there is no ground to indicate the complicity of this petitioner in the commission of any of the offences alleged and that he being merely a candidate who appeared for the examination conducted by KPSC. he cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences, which stated to have been committed by the examiner on the ground that he has awarded higher marks than to which he was entitled to. 3) The petitioner herein being the Government Servant employed as an Assistant Treasury Officer (Group-B), ap...
Kalavathi, Vs. Ramadevi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 2.8.2001 in O.S.35/1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) at Chirkaballapur and judgment and decree dated 11.1.2005 in R.A.No. 133/2001 passed by Prl.Civil Judge (SrDn) at Chickbaltapur, dismissing the suit for decree of specific performance of agreement of sale. 2. Appellant is the second defendant and second respondent is the first defendant and first respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. In this judgment for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Conn. 3. Plaintiff contends that defendants executed at agreement of sale on 20.7.1995 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.50.000/- and acknowledged the receipt of advance money of Rs.30,000/-. It is further aggrieved that within a time frame of six months, the balance said consideration is to Le paid and the first defendant shall execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Despite rep...
Vishwanath So Krishnappa and anr. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.PC. the petitioners herein who have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.41/11 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(3), 802 r/w Scot ion 34 IPC have sought for grant of bail. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as under: Comnlainant-CW. 1-Parvathamma is the sister of accused No.3-Krishnappa. Accused No. 1-Vishwanatha is the son of accused No.3. Accused No.3 had filed a suit in O.S.No.380/97 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.). Magadi for declaration and other reliefs in respect of certain properties belonging to Gopaiah, father of CW. 1 and accused No.3. It is the case of the prosecution that in the background of this ill-will in connection with civil dispute, the accused persons forming themselves into an unlawful assembly by sharing common object and by hatching a conspiracy committed the murder of Ramaiah, husband of CW.l. on 13.11.2010 in K...
Ballenahalli Grama Panchayath, Vs. M B Vishakante Gowda Son of Boralin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998 in O.S.No.79/89 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) at K.R.Pet and judgment and decree dated 16.8.2004 in R.A.No.7/99 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Srirangapaiua. 2. Appellants are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. In this judgment for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court. 3. Plaintiff contends that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest in the plaint schedule property. In the month of May 1989, the defendants tried to interfere with the plaintiff s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. At that time, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.79 89 for declaration of title, and permanent injunction. 4. The defendants entered appearance before the Trial Court, filed written statement interalia contending that in the year 195...
Raja Naika, Son of Adavi Naika and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Crl.A No. 1609/2004 is filed by accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 and Crl.A.No.438/2006 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 5 in S.C.No. 13/2002 challenging the judgment dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, ShJmoga convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for a period for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/- in default, to suffer S.I. for another period of 2 months with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.4,000/- to the victim. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2001 at about 9.00 p.m., the accused when waiting in the backyard of residence of the victim situated at Koratakere Thanda, Shikaripura taluk of Shimoga district and while she came there to tether the Ox, the accused abducted her and carried her forcibly to a place on the field of Koratagere Thanda, they laid her down on the ground and the gang raped her one after another despite her resistance and each of the...
Sayeeda Degum Vs. State of Karnataka by the Secretary to Education Dep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
(This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dtd 19.11.08 passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka Administration Tribunal, in application No.70/2000, vide Annex-J as arbitrary non sustainable in law and etc.) The petitioner is challenging the legality and correctness of the dismissal of her application by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Bangalore, dated 19.11.2008 passed in Application No.70/2000. 2. The petitioner was working as a teacher in the Urdu Primary School. She was dismissed from service by order dated 13.5.2008 on account of her unauthorized absence. Two years later through her power of attorney holder an application was filed by the petitioner before the KAT challenging the order of dismissal. 3. The facts leading to this case are as here under:- The applicant at the first instance was working as a teacher in Urdu Higher Primary School at Chickmagalur. She applied for leave for three days with effe...
Karnataka Lokayukta M.S. Buildings and ors. Vs. Karimsab and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2011
1. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed, that on the jurisdictional issue of the competence of the Lokayukta in investigating into the matter, as also, in recording a report in respect thereof, the issue has now been rendered infructuous, on account of the notification dated 30.08.2010, were by Section 7 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was amended. Additionally, under Section 7 of the Karnataka Lokayukta (Amendment) Act. 2010, the proceedings conducted by the Lokayukta, by a fiction of law, had been validated. Therefore, the investigation carried out by the Karnataka Lokayukta. as also, the report submitted by him on the basis thereof has to be treated as valid for all intents and purposes. Accordingly, it is not any more essential for us to adjudicate on the jurisdictional aspect of the matter determined by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of various writ petitions, out of which the instant connected writ appeals have arisen, nor is it necessary to do so in the con...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »