Karnataka Court June 2011 Judgments
The Commissioner, Mysore and anr. Vs. R. Vasudeea Murthy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. A preliminary notification was issued on 19.12.1991 seeking to acquire the land in Sy. No. 146/6 of Dattagalli village, Mysore. Thereafter, a final notification to acquire 02 acres 12 guntas of land in the said village was issued on 10.12.1992 The aforesaid laud was acquired by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the MUDA') which took possession of the acquired land on 26.08.1997. Immediately thereafter, the MUDA carved cut sites on the acquired land and allotted the same to the general public. 2. By an order of the government dated (8.08.1999, 01 acre 35 guntas of land, out of acquired land of 02 acres 12 guntas was ordered to be denotified by the State Government, in exercise of its power under Section-48 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, in other words, 01 acre 35 guntas of land was released from acquisition. The de-notification order dated 18.08.1999 was gazetted on 13.09.1999. When the position stood thus, respondent no.l purchased the denoti...
Tag this Judgment!Sub Inspector Bantwal Town. Vs. Ramachandra Moolya Son of Late Narayan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. The State has filed this appeal against judgment of acquittal of respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), for an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. 2. We have heard Sri.N.S.Sampangiramaiah. Learned HCGP for the State and Sri.Sadique H.S., learned counsel for accused. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: PW. 1 -Ismail and PW.2 -Rubiya are the parents of victim-girl. She was aged about 11 years during the year 2004. 4. On 29.12.2004 i.e., 5 days prior to 3.1.2005, at about 10.30 a.m., when the victim was returning from her school, the accused caught hold other and dragged her to a forest called Bappugudda and committed rape on her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. The accused after seeing the passerby left the victim and ran away from the place of incident. The victim had miserable pain on her genitals. She informed the mater to her mother as the father (PW. 1) of victim was away from the village. PW.2 - Rubiya...
Tag this Judgment!Subramami Son of JayappA. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
ORDER 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13/2011 of Srinivasapura Police Station, Kolar District, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader. I have perused the records. 3. Srinivasapura Police have registered a case in Crime No.13/2011 against accused No.l-J.Subiamani, accused No.2 Chandrababu, accused No.3-Krisiniamurty, accused No.4-Jayappa, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504 read with Sect'on 34 of Indian Penal Code on the complaint of Palguna. It is alleged in the complaint that on 14.1.2011 at 6.30 p.m. the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant near Diary at Kolathuru Village. Due to previous enemity, the accused assaulted him with...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Aral Kumar Son of Ravindranath and ors Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
JUDGMENT J.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral) 1. Through this common order, we propose to dispose of Writ Appeal Nos.4457-4461/2011. 4462-4464/2011 and 4466-4475/2011 2. Learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal Nos.4466-4475/2011 states, that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ appeals qua appellant nos.9 and 10. In view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the instant writ appeals, qua appellant no.9 -Dr.Shanmukappa and appellant no. 10 -Dr.Devendrappa. are dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Through the instant writ appeals, the appellants are seeking to assail the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 31.05.2011 in Writ Petition Nos. 15539-15542/201 1. It would be relevant to mention, that the aforesaid order came to be passed, consequent upon the implications which emerged from two notifications dated 16.03.2006 and 06.07.2007. By the former notification, the State government promulgated the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of KarnatakA. Vs. Sri P. Sadashivan, So. Padmanabhan. and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the State, challenging the judgment dated 08.10.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court-Il, Bangalore City in S.C.No. 364/1999. acquitting the accused-respondents of the offences under Section 120-B, 306 and 201 IPC. It is case of the prosecution that the accused Nos. I to 3 were trustees of the Visbveshwaraiah Trust and the said trust was running a college called as Rajeev Gandhi Dental College. Accused No. 1 was the chairman of the trust. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are sons of accused No. 1 and also trustees of the trust and Accused No.4 was the manager of the college. It is case of the prosecution that the deceased Aiya Somaraj was admitted to the first year B.D.S. course in the said college on 9.12.1997 and the deceased Arya Somaraj and her father failed to meet demands of Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the payment of donation and also annual tuition fees in time; agreed to do an illegal act of abetting Aiya Somaraj to committee suicide with an intention to allot t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. T. Hanumanthappa, Vs. Sri. Kanyappa, Son of. RangappA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs against the concurrent findings of the courts below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs filed for the relief of permanent injunction. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the suit before the trial Court are: Suit property bearing khata No.51, property No. 71. totally measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 25 feet with two houses existed therein and described as suit schedule property originally belonged to his father by name Obappa and it was his ancestral property. His father died about 15 to 20 years back, leaving behind him the plaintiff as his sole legal heirs. But even now, khata of the property stands in the name of his father. After the death of his father, plaintiff became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of A' schedule property without any interrup...
Tag this Judgment!G.Channarayappa, Son of Late Gummaiah and ors. Vs. Ms Lakshmi Mailable ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. Appellants are the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit/s instituted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The 2nd respondent is the 5th defendant in the suit/s. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the suit/s. 2. Brief facts of the case are: (i) The plaintiff is an allottee of sites bearing Nos.169, 170, 171, 189, 190, 191 & 198 situated at Nagarabhavi II Stage layout, formed in Sy.No.103 of Nagarabhavi Village, Bangalore North Taluk, by the 5th defendant/Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The possession of the said sites were delivered by the BDA to the plaintiff on 07.11.2007 and the sale deeds were executed. The katha of the sites has been registered in the name of the plaintiff. (ii) The land bearing Sy.No.103, measuring 2 acres, situated at Nagarabhavi Village, which belonged to the defendants 1 to 4 was acquired by the Government, pursuant to a Preliminary Notification dated 15.07.1982 and a final declaration dated 16.05.1985. An award was...
Tag this Judgment!Smt NingammA. Wo Late Puttaswamachart Vs. K Basavaraju, Son of Kalacha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff aggrieved by the lower appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court. The trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and the lower appellate court on appeal being preferred by the defendants, set aside the trial court's judgment and the suit was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that, the plaintiff approached the trial court for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property which had been displayed in the suit schedule as house in Kathathi village. Mandya taluk bearing house No.263. The specific case of the plaintiff was that, the 2nd defendant is her father-in-law and the plaintiff being married to the son of the 2nd defendant and following her husband having died on 23.02.1993, the plaintiff was left as the only heir of her husband's properties. The 2nd defendant and his sons have divided the properties under a partition deed and the plaintiffs husband was given th...
Tag this Judgment!Sri G.G.Uddegowda Son of Sri Giddegowda Vs. L Srikenchaiah Son of Late ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.2011 in R.A.No.65/2006 passed by the Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur reversing the judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 30.6.2006 in O.S.No. 107/2004 passed by the Prl.Ovil Judge (Jr.Dn) Mudigere. 2. Appellants and second respondent arc the plaintiffs and first respondent is the defendant before the Trial Court. In this judgment, for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court. 3. The subject matter of this litigation is 3 Acres 16 Guntas in Sy.No.17 of Chattanahalli village, Mudigere Taluk. According to the plaintiffs, the schedule property is a Gomala of Chattanahalh village. The plaintiffs and other villagers are grazing theii cattle in this Gomala land. Since the defendant prevented the plaintiffs horn grazing their cattle in the plaint schedule property, they filed O.S.No. 107/2004 for decree of permanent injunction. 4. The defendant entered appearance before the Trial C...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer Kptcl. Vs. Ashok Parimoo.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. The order passed by the District Judge, Udupi, in Misc.Case No.10/2004 passed under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order, the District Judge has granted compensation to the tune of ?15,85,000/- to the claimant-resDondent herein with interest at the rate of b% p.a. from 7.10.2003 till payment as the respondent has lose certain portion of his land because of erection of electrical towers and drawing of 110 KV high tension electrical lines. 2. The records reveal that the respondent is the owner of the immovable property bearing No.61/12-P14, measuring 1.98 acres, situated at Shivalli village, Lakshmindra Nagar, Udupi Manipal road, Udupi. He is running a Bar & Restaurant under the name and style of "Bacchus Inn" and a mini-video theatre in the said property. The petitioner-KPTCL erected two huge electrical towers on the said property for the puroose of drawing high tension electrical lines. One tower is erected on the south...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »