Karnataka Court January 2012 Judgments
M/S Mspl Limited Vs. M/S S.B. Minerals and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
(Prayer: This RSA is filed U/s 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dt.29.6.2009 passed in R.A.No.19/2008 on the file of the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hospet, allowing the appeal and set-aside the Judgment and decree and dismissing suit dtd: 8.2.2008 passed in O.S.No.82/2006 on the file of the PRL.CIVIL judge (JR.DN), hospet, decreeing the suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction.) 1. The defendant in O.S.No.82/2006 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Hospet, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dt. 8.2.2008 allowing the suit, preferred RA 19/2009 whence the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hospet reversed the Judgment and decree and dismissed the suit by Judgment and decree dt. 29.6.2009. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. 2. Parties, hereinafter, are referred to as described in the plaint. 3. The panorama of factual position as set out in the pleadings of the parties is: I. PLAINT ASSERTIONS: i) The plaintiff is a limited company incorporated under...
Tag this Judgment!T. Navalesh Vs. Asst. Commissioner and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice of the meeting under form No.2, by the R1, dated 9.12.11 as per Anne-D and etc.) 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the notice dated 9.12.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub Division, Ramanagara convening the meeting of the members of Vandaraguppe Grama Panchayat on 26.12.2011 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of considering the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the Adhyaksha of Vandaraguppe Grama Panchayat. The impugned notice has been issued on 7.7.2011 convening the meeting on 28.7.2011 at 11.00 a.m. to consider the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. As there was no quorum, in terms of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat), Rules 1994, (for short, ‘the Rules’), the meeting stood diss...
Tag this Judgment!Vriksha Estates Private Limited, Rep by Its Director, Smt. Radha Vaidy ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
(Prayer: This W.A. is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order passed in the Writ Petition No. 14954/1999(LA-BDA) dated 12/04/2011.) N.K. PATIL J., 1. The appellant-petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 12/04/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14954/1999, has presented this appeal. 2. Along with the appeal, learned counsel for appellant has filed I.A.No.I/2011 for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.. 4. The delay of 68 days in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant in the affidavit filed along with the application, stating that, the certified copy of the impugned order was made available on 21.5.2011, she could not instruct her counsel at Bangalore to file an appeal inasmuch her grand child at Canada was ill and she was constrained to go t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jayamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
(Prayer: This Crl.R.P. is filed u/S.397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 01.10.2011 in Crl.A.No.132/11 on the file of the P.O., FTC-XVI, Bangalore city and consequently confirm the order dated 18.11.10 in C.C.No.12330/04 on the file of the I Addl.CMM, Bangalore.) 1. The question that is involved in this revision petition is as to the applicability of the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and whether the said proviso is applicable with retrospective effect. 2. Brief facts which have given raise to the aforesaid question are that, the petitioners herein were put on trial in C.C.No.12330/04 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 r/w Section 420 of IPC and the case of the prosecution against the petitioners were that the petitioners who were accused Nos.1 to 6 before the trial Court, induced several persons including the complainant to subscribe to a chit scheme which was run by them and t...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Jaishankar Son of Puttaswamy. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
1. Case has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) read with Section 31(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Petitioner has been trapped while taking bribe amount. Petitioner has been arrested on 9.12.2011 and has been in judicial custody for about one month. The investigation appears to have been complete. 3. Considering the same, I find that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail on certain conditions. 4. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: I) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 25000/ with two solvent surties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. II) The petitioner shall regularly attend the court on hearing dates. III) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses....
Tag this Judgment!B. Manjunath Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is files under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 19.1.2008 passed by 1st respondent vide Annexure ‘A’, etc.) 1. The petitioner is a member of the Bharath Co-Operative Bank (Mumbai) Limited, the second respondent herein, having its branch office at K.H.Road, Bangalore. The second respondent is registered under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (‘Act’ for short). The petitioner had availed certain financial assistance from the second respondent-society. Since the petitioner failed to repay the amount to the society, it raised a dispute under Section 84 of the Act against the petitioner and two sureties, namely, Mr. Shankar Rao Sindhey and Mr. Mallikarjuna M.R. The dispute was referred to arbitration wherein it was numbered as AR/AHN/BCB/KHR/71/07. The Arbitrator has passed an award as per Annexure ‘A’ dated 19.1.2008 holding that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Sri B. Srinivas, Son of Late ByrappA. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
1. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of land bearing No.483 (old No. 176) measuring 2 acres situated at Bagalur Village in Jala Houli of Bangalore North Taluk, has filed this writ petition to quash a Notification issued under S.28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, the Act), dated 09.04.2008, as at Annexure-F. 2. Material facts of the case are: Petitioner purchased the land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No.176 cf Bagalur Village in Jala Hobli of Bangalore North Taluk from one Rajanna S/o late Ramalah, under a sale deed dated 22.03.1995, as at Annexure-A. Mutation in respect of the said property was effected in the name of the petitioner as per an order dated 11.06.2003, as at Annexure-B. The petitioner's name appears in the PTC for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07, as is evident from Annexures-C & D. 3. A preliminary Notification under S.28(l) of the Act to acquire the said property along with other properties was issued on 16.12.06 and was publish...
Tag this Judgment!Rama @ Ramegowda Vs. State by Pandavapura Police Represented by S.P.P.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
(Prayer: This Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, praying to set aside the judgment of conviction in S.C. Special Case No. 63/2002 passed by the learned addl Sessions and Special Judge, Mandya dated 22/01/2005 and acquit the appellant by allowing this appeal.) 1. The appellant filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentences passed in Special Case no. 63/2002 in the file of the Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Mandya, wherein the appellant was found guilty of the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocties) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: On 01/01/2002, the deceased Puttathyamma instructed PW-19 – Srinivasa to plough her land. Accordingly, on 02/02/2002 at about 6.30. A.M. he ...
Tag this Judgment!K.E. Basavarajappa Vs. H. Chandrappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
(Prayer: MFA No.1822/2010 IS FILED UNDER Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and Award dated 02.02.2010 passed in MVC No.88/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Holalkere, partly allowing the Claim Petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. The appellant has filed MFA No. 1822/2010 seeking enhancement of the compensation for the injuries sustained in an accident, whereas the insurer has filed MFA No. 2846/2010 challenging the occurrence of the accident and the amount of compensation granted. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of these appeals are as under: The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal, for the purpose of convenience. The appellant in the first appeal is the petitioner, whereas the appellant in the other appeal is the respondent No.2-insurer. The petitioner claims that while he was going by walk on the left side of S.H.47 road near Chowdamma Temple, Hirekere, Holalkere Taluk, o...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Ronald D Colaco Son of Late F.B.L. Colaco. Vs. Official Liquidator ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
1. These applications are filed under Rules 6 and 9 of Companies (Court) Rules 1959 praying for deletion of their names from the proceedings initiated under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short). 2. The applicants are the Ex-Directors of M / s. Janamadhyama Prakashana Limited (in liquidation). They are respondents No.7, 11 and 6 respectively in Company Application No. 867/2010 filed by the Official Liquidator under Section 543 of the Companies Act, for recovery of Rs.5,66,04,164.01 (Rupees five crores sixty six lakhs four thousand one hundred sixty four and paise one only) from the respondents 1 to 15 jointly and severally alleging that, as per the balance sheet as on 31-3 2001, it shows that the respondents have fraudulently or dishonestly failed In hand over the fixed assets, instruments, cash, bank balance, current accounts, loan advanced, sundry debts and statement of accounts of the Company valuing of Rs.5.66,04.164.01 (Rupees five crores sixty six lakhs tou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »