Karnataka Court February 2012 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.
K.G.Bopaiah. Vs. S.N.Raja Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
1. The petitioners in these petitions have been arrayed as accused 1 to 4 Thereinafter referred to as 'accused 1 to 4' respectively in P.C.No. 1/2011, initiated by Il-respondent, alleging offences punishable under section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. sections 409. 420 & 120B IPC and section 3A of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The learned Special Judge on receipt of complaint referred the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, to I respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Lokayukta Police, Madikeri and it was registered in Crime No.8/2011 on 08.12.2011. These petitions are filed to quash entire proceedings in P.C.No. 1/2011 and first information registered in prime No.8/2011 by I-respondent. 2. I have heard Sri S.Vijay Shankar, learned senior counsel for accused no. 1. Sri Murthy Dayanand Naik. learned counsel for accused 2 to 4, Smt.T.M.Gayathri, learned counsel for I-respondent and Sri A.K.Subbaiah, learned counsel for Il-respondent. 3. The brief facts as ...
Lokappa Son of Dodpara and ors. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
1. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.218/2011 registered by Kadur Police, Chiekmagalur. for the offences punishable under Sections 9. 39. 40, 44, 50, 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 r/w Section 429 of IPC r/w Sec. 4, 5, 9B(b) of Explosives Act. 2. Police on investigation has filed the charge sheet. These accused are in judicial custody for a considerable time and all the accused belong to tribal area. 3. Having regard to the same. I find that the petitioners could be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: Hi the petitioners shall execute personal bond for 25.000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (i) They shall regularly attend the Court on hearing dates. (ii) They shall not. tamper with the prosecution witnesses....
Moksha Foods and Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, Represented b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
1. Common question of law is involved in both these cases. 2. The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 2914 of 2009 is having a manufacturing unit outside the State of Kerala and is doing business by sale of the products so manufactured and brought into the State, by way of stock transfer. The point raised is, whether the concessional rate of tax confined to the products manufactured by the ‘SSI units registered in the State of Kerala’ alone, under Entry 6 of the Schedule II of SRO No. 1091 of 1999, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 301, 302 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India. 3. In W.P(C) No. 35617 of 2009, besides the above legal question, another issue has also been raised, contending that, in the absence of any specific entry in the first schedule to the KGST Act, to cover "Soda makers" for rate purpose, the rate of tax can only be 8%, under the ‘Residuary Entry’. There is no dispute on the factual aspects. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2914 of 2005, a...
M/S. Ibex Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
1. This appeal by the dealer, registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short hereinafter referred to As ‘the Act’), u/s.66(1) of the Act of the common order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Zone-1, Bangalore, exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s.64(1) of the Act revising the Appeal order VAT/AP Nos. 1544, 1545,1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554 and 1555/07-08 dated 7.7.2008. 2. Insofar as the present appeal by the dealer is concerned, it is mainly for setting aside the order of the Commissioner two aspects; such as, the correctness of the order of the Commissioner and insofar as it relates to the Commissioner taking the view that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner exercising appeal jurisdiction is erroneous for the reason that the dealer/assessee who had claimed certain sales in respect of what is known as moulds manufactured by it for the purpose of manufacturing a pro...
M/S. Eureka Builders, Rep. by Its Partner Shyam Ramasa Jartarghar and ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
(Prayer: This CRP is filed under Section 115 of CPC., against the Order dated 05.08.2011 passed in OS No.37/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli dismissing the I.A.No.III filed under Section 8 of Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 etc.) 1. Revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is by the applicant whose application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the Arbitration Act) has been rejected by the impugned Order in O.S. No.37/2010. 2. Revision is posted for admission after notice to the respondents. The respondent Nos.2 to 7 have entered caveat. 3. Heard regarding admission. The factual matrix to which the learned counsel have adverted to, and manifest from the records, reveals: a) The 1st respondent in this revision Gulabchand, a person of unsound mind, represented by the next friend and guardian-Nilesh, filed suit in O.S.No.37/2010 seeking decree: a) for partition and separation possession of his 1/5th ...
K.Nandakumar, Son of S.Krishna Setty Vs. S.Nagaraj, Son of S.Adinaraya ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
1. This appeal by the complainant is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2006 passed by the XX Additional CMM, Bangalore City in C.C No.32411 /99 acquitting the respondent - accused of the change levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1908 (for short ' the Act'). 2. The appellant / complainant tiled private complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent - accused inter alia contending that the complainant and the accused were known to each other from a long time: that pleading certain difficulties, the accused borrowed hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on 16.9.1998 promising to repay the same with simple interest at 12% p.a. thereon within 3 months; thai accordingly the accused issued cheque bearing No.082850 dated 16.12.1998 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagar Branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant towards the principal amoun...
A. N. Ramalingegowda and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
1. These three petitions, though filed a year apart from each of the previous petition, the subject matter of these three petitions is the same. The subject matter as noticed in the first writ petition is the transfer of an extent of 10000 square feet of land with a dilapidated building known as community hall by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagarapa Palike [for short, BBMP or civic body] in favour of a private company by name M/s Daanish Publications Private Ltd., impleaded as third respondent in WP No 15525 of 2006 and figuring respondents 4 and 2 respectively in the other two petitions, for consideration of a sum of Rs. 1.68 crore as per sale deed dated 22-2-2007, which, of course, is a development subsequent to filing of the first of these three writ petitions, but figures as subject matter in the second petition presented on 9-6-2008. These writ petitions have been treated as public interest petitions, as none of the petitioners are seeking for any personal relief, personal to any one...
G. N. Ramesh Vs. the State of Karnataka, Department of Education and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
1. The petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 16.12.2010 made in application No. 4449/2004 and endorsement dated 06.02.2004 at Annexure - ‘M’ and directed the respondent to provide appointment on compassionate grounds for any suitable post. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father B. Nanjundappa who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Government High School died on 21.05.1992 and the petitioner’s mother made an application seeking appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground but the request was rejected. The petitioner challenged the endorsement before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that the impugned common order dated 16.12.2010 the Tribunal has rejected 13 applications and the petitioner is one among them. She further submits that at the time of death of petitioner’s father that is on 21.05.1992 the petitioner was 11 years old and thus he...
Dr. Poornima Vs. Directorate of Medical Education. Rep by Dr. A.R. Aru ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
1. These appeals assail the order dated 23/09/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. Writ Appeal Nos. 17280-17281/2011 are filed against the order passed in W.P. No.27146/2011 and W.P. No. 27260/2011 which have been allowed. While W. A. No 16804/2011 is filed against W.P. No. 30638/2011 which is dismissed. 2. The petitioners in the writ petitions had assailed the selection of ion-service candidates to study M.Ch Surgical Oncology course, which is a super specialty course for Academic year 2011-12. Pursuant to publication of calendar of events for the purpose admission to super specialty course, the petitioners as well as the private respondents who are all in-service candidates had applied for and appeared in the entrance examination for M.Ch Surgical Oncology course on 19/06/2011. Thereafter, the State Government published the seat matrix by issuance of notification dated 04/07/2011. Interms of the said notification, out of 8 seats in the Government quot...
Raju Vs. M/S. Ahdhavan Bankers Represented by Manager
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
(Prayer: This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order-41, Rule-1 Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2011 passed in O.S. No.27079/2009 on the file of the IV - Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore City, ordering the plaint to be returned for presentation before the proper court having jurisdiction for the suit of the mandatory injunction.) 1. The appeal coming on for admission, is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances. The appeal is therefore admitted. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M.S. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the respondents. 3. The present appeal is against a judgment under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ for brevity) returning the plaint to be presented before the proper court having jurisdiction. The learned ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »