Karnataka Court June 2011 Judgments

Sri. Munnaji Rao. So Late Muniswamy Rao, and ors. Vs. the State of Kar ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER 1) In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Petitioners- 1 & 2. who have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 2 & 3 in C.C No.295/2011 on the file of the VIII Additional CMM. Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A. 323. 504. 506. 149 of IPC. r/w. Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (For short D.P. Act), have sought for quashing the criminal prosecution launched against them. 2) On the basis of the report lodged by Smt. V. Geetha. the daughter-in-law of the lst petitioner and sister-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. Chandra Layout police registered the case and took-up investigation. 3) There is no dispute that the complainant before the police is the legally wedded wife of Sri. Vinayaka, son of the lst petitioner and brother of the 2nd petitioner. In the complaint she alleged that, after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband, father-in-law, sister-in-law and others in connection with the demand for furthe...

State by Circle Inspector of Police. Vs. Shivarangareddy at Shivareddy ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. CrLA.No.370/2008 is tiled by the State, seeking enhancement of sentence whereas CrI.A.No. 1888/2007 initially was filed by both accused Nos. 1 and 2 questioning the commotion. 3. During the pendency of this appeal accused No.1 died. Hence, pursuant an order dated 13.4.2011. this Court ordered that the appeal as against accused No. I stood abated. Hence. in this appeal we are concerned only with accused No.2. 4. A chargesheet is filed as against accused Nos.1 & 2 (or the offences punishable under Sections 450, 342. 506. 306 & 376 (2) (g) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. The complainant is PW1 Jayamma wife, of Shivarudraiah. She is the mother of the deceased. The alleged offence is stated to have taken place on 5,2,2001 at about 9.00 a.m. PWI along with her two sons PW6 and PW12 went to the agricultural land for agricultural operations. PWS and one Shaikwah wno are the residents of MyiarahalH where the deceased as W...

Shri. P.R. Rangegewda and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. The petitioners were appointed in the fourth respondent company between the years 1984 and 1.986 in various capacities. The fourth respondent had suffered heavy losses and added to this the Apex Court in a decision had prohibited mining operations in the forest area under the provisions of the Forest Development Act, 1980. In view of the judgment, the Company was forced to completely stop mining operations in forest areas. This resulted in its employees being rendered surplus'. Therefore, a policy decision wais taken to introduce a voluntary retirement scheme in 1998. Under the said Scheme 1300 employees and majors opted for voluntary retirement. lnspite of this measure the company still experienced surplus work force. Therefore, if resorted to depute them to Government Departments and the Government undertakings. By an order dated 4.6.1999 necessary instructions were issued to all the Departments of the Governmen...

Sharanappa S. Kallur, Son of SiddaramappA. Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDER 1. This revision petition is by the accused, who was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial court sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10.000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and to six months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in respect of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, with default sentences. 2. The ease of the prosecution in short is that, Vs. complainant Jayashree (P.W.I) was married to the petitioner herein on 26.8.1989 at Canara Union Kalyana iVlantapa, Malleshwara. Bangalore, and at the time of the marriage, one Bajaj Scooter, one colour T.V. gold chain and ring, watch and cash of Rs.50,000/- was given with other household articles. The couple lived happily for two years and, according to the prosecution and the complaint version, the petitioner-accused began to demand ...

Srnt. Masthamma, Wo. Late Choudaiah. Vs. Sri. Channegowda at Puttegowd ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Appellants in MFA 10915/2008 are the petitioners in WCA/F.C/CR-73/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mysore District, Mysore. MFA 70/2009 is by the 2nd respondent in the said case. The appeal filed by the petitioners is for correct assessment and awarding enhanced compensation. The appeal by the insurance company is with regard to its liability to deposit the assessed compensation/award amount. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank, in the claim petition. 2. The petitioners are the wife, son and patents of one Chowdaiah. Tractor trailer bearing registration No.KA-ll-T-7407 & 7408 belongs to the respondent/Sri Channegowda # Puttegowda. The said vehicles were insured by the 2,nd lespondent (Appellant in MFA 70/2009). According to the petitioners, Chowdaiah was employed as a loader in the said tractor-trailer by the 1st respondent and an accident occurred on 18.04.2007 during the course of employment of Chow...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresha, Son of Rangegowda and anr

Court: Karnataka

1. The appellant issued a Farmers' Package Insurance Policy in favour of the 2nd respondent-owner of Lractor-trailer bearing registration NO.KA-13T-1238 & 1239. The 1st respondent instituted a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan, against the 2nd respondent and the appellant, contending that, he was a loader in the said vehicle and in the course of employment, the vehicle met with an accident on 11.01.2004, he sustained injury which is a partial permanent injury, resulting in loss of earning capacity and hence both the employer and the insurer should pay the compensation. 2. The appellant, who is the 2ND respondent in the claim petition, contested the claim by filing statement of objections, interalia contending that, the petitioner was not a loader in the tractor-trailer and also denied the age, income and relationship with the 1st respondent-owner of the tractor. However, it admitted the issuance of insurance cover to the vehi...

Bhadre Gowda Son of Mari GowdA. and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner M ...

Court: Karnataka

J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (ORAL) : 1. An extent of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.85 (Old.No. Ill) in the revenue estate of Bekya Village in Periyapatna Taluk. Mysore District was granted In favour of Cheluvaiah on 04.06.1955. The "Saguvali Chit" (possession/grant certificate) was issued in favour of Cheluvaiah on 29.06.1955. On 01.10.1962. the original grantee. Cheluvaiah sold the grant land to Narasimhaehari; Narasimhaohari in turn, sold it to Ercgowda: and Eregowda, on 22.2.1973 sold the said grant land to Marideve Gowda. 2. The original grantee i.e. Cheluvaiah moved an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as PTCL' Act) seeking annulment of the grant land sold by him. The Assistant Commissioner, accepted the prayer made by Cheluvaiah vide an order dated 21.04.1982. The aforesaid order was passed keeping in view, the mandat...

Mallayya Son of Basayya Hoolimath. Vs. Basaweshwar Devastan Trust Comm ...

Court: Karnataka

1. These two petitions are directed against the order, dated 12.07.2010 passed by the Court of the Pii. Senior Civil Judge 6 C.J.M. Dharwad on I.As. I, II and III in R.A. No. 20/2010. 2. The facts of the ease in brief are that the petitioner filed O.S. No. 582/2008 against six defendants seeking the relief of declaration that the compromise decree in O.S. No. 503/1993 is illegal, null and void and not binding on him. The notice issued to the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 came back with the endorsement that the said parties are dead. THV 6th defendant appeared, but did not file the written statement. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court granted an exparte decree declaring that the compromise decree in O.S, No. 503/1993 is null and void and directing the D1 defendant (1st respondent herein) to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the petitioner (plaintiff). The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on coming to know of the passing of the exparte decree, tiled R.A. No. 20/2010 questio...

The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Udupi District, Udupi and ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Appeal is filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.27555/2003 dated 11.02.2005) SATYANARAYANA, J., 1. The DDPI, Udupi District, 1st respondent in W.P.No.27555/2003 has come up in this appeal impugning the order dated 11.2.2005 passed in the said writ petition, wherein recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner pursuant to Annexure-A is upheld with a direction to 1st respondent/appellant herein to confirm the benefit provided under Annexure-A to petitioner and also to refund the recovery, if any, with reference to excess payment made to him. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: Respondent herein was working as Assistant Teacher in Durgaparameshwari Higher Primary School, Bantakallu, Udupi Taluk. Since his appointment was found to be in excess of the sanctioned limit, his service was taken out from the said school. However, to accommodate him, he was re-deployed in K.M. Aided Higher Prima...

G. Channarayappa and Others Vs. M/S Lakshmi Mallables and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(4)KantLJ657; 2011ILR(Kar)3141; 2011(4)KCCR3961

(Prayer: MFA 4706 of 2011 is filed under section 104, r/w order 43 rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 23.05.2011 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.25389/2011 on the file of the IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall unit, Bangalore, restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and directing the plaintiff therein to maintain status quo as on order dated in respect of suit schedule site until such orders that may be passed in W.A.1522/09 or pending disposal of the suit, whichever is earlier.) COMMON JUDGMENT 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 and 198 situated at Nagarabhavi II Sta...