Karnataka Court June 2011 Judgments
Sri. Doddaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to Revenue D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
(This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.333/2006 dtd. 31st January 2011 vide Annexure-J confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner in Case No.Ra 1/2005-06 dtd. 30.1.2006 vide Annexure-H, which in turn confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner in case No.LND 28/1998-99 dtd. 21.4.2005 vide Annexure-G and etc., Misc.W.5852 of 2011 is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying to grant a temporary injunction restraining the Petitioner from interfering in peaceful possession of fifth respondents land in Sy.No.1/98 and Sy.No.1/99 of Kenchanagalli Village, H D Kote Taluk and etc.,) This writ petition has come up for orders on the application in Misc W No.5852 of 2011 filed by the fifth respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, praying for a restraint order against the writ petitioner, on the premise that the interim order of status quo granted by this c...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co Ltd., Now Represented by Its Regional Manager Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
(Prayer: This MFA crob is filed U/S 213/2008 filed U/order 41 Rule 22 of CPC R/W Sec 173(1) of MV Act. against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2007 passed in MVC No.37/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional Mact. Bhadravathi, Awarding A Compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest A 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.) 1. Both the MFA’s are directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.37/2002. 2. MFA No.213/2008 is filed by the insurer questioning the liability and MFA No.4906/2008 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. MFA Cross objection No.48/2010 is by the owner questioning the pay and recovery order. 3. There is an inordinate delay of 741 days in filing the cross objection. However, matter is considered on merit. 4. Facts leading to the case are; that on 13.12.2001 the deceased Somblibai and her brother Halesha Naika with some other workers had gone to Holehonnur to bring paddy straw for their own purpose. While returni...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R. Halesha and Others Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by the Pr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. These petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order as the petitioners are all seeking identical reliefs, in the same set of circumstances.2. The circumstances leading up to the presentation of these petitions are as follows:It is highlighted by the petitioners that in order to provide for co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities the Union Parliament had, in the year 1956, enacted the University Grants commission Act, 1956 and established the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UGC’ for brevity) with the object of promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities and in order to achieve the said objects, to disburse grants through the Commission.It is submitted that prior to 1966, the teaching staff in the State were governed by the pay scales fixed by the State Government. Whereas, the UGC pa...
Tag this Judgment!State by the Police Inspector. Vs. Sri V.NagendrappA. FdA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
J U D G M E N T 1. This criminal appeal is by the Lokayuktha Police. Chitradurga, calling in question the judgment bf acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of the respondent-accused. The trial court acquitted the respondent, who was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the respondent-accused, while working as an F.D.A. in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, demanded from the complainant Rs. 1,000/- as bribe a mourn and this was towards doing a favour to the complainant by forwarding the complainant's departmental inquiry report prepared by the Tahasildar to the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Bangalore, in respect of promotion of the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.9.2001, at about 4.15 p.m. in the office of the accused, the accused demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-from complainant ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Chandrashekar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
(Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 2.6.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, in Spl.C.C.No.105/2003, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences as stated therein.) This criminal appeal is by the accused, who has been convicted by the trial court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in respect of the offence under Section 7 and two years S.I. and Rs.5,000/- fine in respect of the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, with default sentences. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the appellant herein, while working as a Police Sub-Inspector at Ulsoor Gate Police Station, demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant in order to release the vechile No.CAW 6060, which vehicle had me...
Tag this Judgment!Chimmanamada Ganesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
N. ANANDA, J. 1. The appellant/accused convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC has filed this appeal. 2. We have heard Sri Dinesh Kumar K. Rao, learned Counsel for accused and Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned S.P.P. for the State. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: Deceased Saraswathi was the younger sister of PW-1 Biddappa. During the year of 2005, PW-1 performed the marriage of deceased with accused. Thereafter, deceased was living in the house of accused in Chikkamandoor village. Accused and deceased were the only inmates of the house. After a period of two months from the date of marriage, accused was demanding and harassing deceased to bring money from the house of PW-1. Accused was assaulting deceased. The deceased had stayed in the house of PW-1 for sometime. PW-1 gave some amount and sent back deceased. However, accused did not stop assaulting deceased and demanding her to bring money from her parental house. The accused had assaulted...
Tag this Judgment!Jagalur Madhukeshwar Vs. Smt. B.G. Kamalakshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
ARALI NAGARAJ, J. 1. The present appeal is by the petitioner (husband) in M.C.No.6/2004 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hassan (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). He has challenged in this appeal correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2009 passed in the said case dismissing his petition filed under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against his wife (respondent herein) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. 2. We have heard the arguments of Kumari Prajwala, learned Counsel for the appellant-husband and Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, learned Counsel for the respondent-wife. Perused the impugned Judgment and Decree and also the entire material found in the original records in the said case obtained from the Trial Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant-husband strongly contended that the Trial Court committed error in appreciating the evidence of the petitioner-husband and his witnesses which clearly establishes th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa @ Ramaiah and Others Vs. the Deputy Commissioner Chikamaglur a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india with a prayer to quash the impugned order passed by deputy commissioner chikamagalur order dt: 7.12.2009 and order dt: 7.12.2009 vide anx-g and h and please to confirm the orders of asst. Commissioner tarikere in order dt: 9.1.2009 and order dt: 9.1.2009 vide anx-e and f direct the asst. Commissiner to restore the land to petitioners.) 1. Writ petitions by two grantees who were granted an extent of 3 acres of land each in Old Sy.No.13 of H.Rangapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tarikere Taluk in terms of a grant order No.LND.DARU (SC) 28/68-69 dated 14.7.1971 passed by the Tahsildar, Tarikere Taluk (copy produced as Annexure A to the petition), which had been followed-up by issuing a saguvali chit dated 27.03.1972 and the lands having been granted to such persons in darkasth proceedings as persons belonging to scheduled caste community. But they having lost the lands whether by hook or crook...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sudhakar and Others Vs. D. Ramaraja and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. This appeal is by plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.7712/2004 on the file of the learned XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-32) Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). These appellant plaintiffs have challenged in this appeal the legality and correctness of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2006 passed in the said case declining to grant the second relief sought for in the said suit. 2. Stated in brief the case of the plaintiffs as averred in their plaint is as under: (a)Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the sons and plaintiff No.3 is the daughter of defendant No.1, Sri D.Ramaraju. Plaintiffs and first defendant constitute joint Hindu family. Their family owns the hour property bearing No.14/1, measuring East to West: 66 ft and North to South: 36.6 ft situate at 2nd Cross Road, Mission Road, Sampangirama Nagar, Bangalore-27, which is fully described as item No.1 in the schedule annexed to the plaint. It also owns another house property bearing...
Tag this Judgment!Spic Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S A.K. ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
GOVINDARAJUL, J 1. The subject place for consideration is in regard to interpretation of amendment of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, by Act 55 of 2002, on the aspect of limitation. 2. The appeal is coming on for admission, both the sides have submitted the arguments on merits. So, case is taken up for final disposal. 3. The complainant in C.C. No. 537/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC is the appellant in this appeal. 4. The parties will be referred according to their ranking before JMFC. FACTS OF THE CASE:- 5. The facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are as under: The case of the complainant is that it is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the business of production and sale of fertilizer and pesticides. 5(a). It is the further case of the complainant that complainant has a branch at Bellary among other branches, in India. The accused has transacted with the complainant for the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »