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.
Shivakumaraswamy Son of Late ShivannA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3. Case is registered against them in Crime No.27/2012 by Ramanagara Town police. Ramanagara for the offence punishible under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 353, 427 read with 34 of IPC.2. The complainant is none other than the Sr. Assistant Director of Publicity and Information Office. Ramanagara. He has alleged that these accused abused and assaulted him for the only mistake that the name of Chairman of Urban Development Authority was not mentioned in the invitation card. It reveals that these petitioners, though are elected representatives, have taken law in their hands and assaulted a public servant. As such, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners.Accordingly, petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioners surrender and seek regular bail, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the same as early as possible not later than four days from the date of such an application....
Defence Estate Officer. Vs. Sri. Selvaraj Bhupathi, and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. There is a delay of 526 days in filing the appeal. The reasons assigned in the affidavit in support of the application is that the deponent was a Defence Estate Officer and that after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment, it had been sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Bangalore Secretariat. Bangalore, seeking opinion tor filing an appeal before this Court. The Ministry of law and Justice had, on 10.08.2009 opined that an appeal ought to be tiled and the same had been referred to one Unnikrishnan. Central Government Counsel for filing an appeal. He had in turn sent the same to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Branch Secretariat, Bangalore. The Ministry in turn had contacted the Madias Engineering Group and Centre, for certain documents to finalise the memorandum of appeal. As the case worker was on leave, the documents were received belatedly and afte1st receipt of the same, it was transmitted to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Branch Secretariat, Bangalore for finaliz...
Vishal Pratty Son of Buchibabu. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The petitioner k accused in Crime No.94/2011 registered by R.T.Nager police, Mangalore city for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.2. Initially, tine petitioner was granted interim hail however, when he sought regular bail, the tame has been reacted.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated accused No,5 has been granted anticipatory bail in CrlP. No.6801/2011 vide order dated 9.1.3012.4. Having regard to the grant of anticipatory bail to accused No .5, petitioner is also granted anticipatory bail.5. Accordingly, petition is allowed, ha the event of arrest of the petitioner by R.T. Nagar Police Bangalore city in Crime No.94/2011, the Police shall interrogate him end after interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to following conditions:i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond foe a sum of 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional police,ii) Petitio...
Muktiyar Son of Mohiddin. Vs. State by New Extention (N.E.)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The petitioner is accused in Crime No.239/2005 registered toy New Extension police, Tumkur for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 of IPC.2. The complainant alleges that the petitioner purchased his lorry for 5,00,000/- and paid only 50,000/-. Thereafter, neither he paid the money nor returned the lony,3. This petitioner appears to have been involved in other cases also and has been in judicial custody for quite sometime. However, is so far as this case is concerned, the allegation appears to be only non-payment of money and non-returning of lorry. Hence, I find that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail.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.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.(ii) The petitioner shall regularly attend the.(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with, the.(iv) The p...
The Commissioner, Bangalore. Vs. V.Jayaram, Son of Late L.VenkatappA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. I.A.1/2008 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 3,287 days in filing the appeal and I.A.11/2098 is Filed seeking permission to produce additional documents and I.A.III/2008 is filed for stay of further proceedings.2. The present appeal is filed by the Bangalore Development Authority thereinafter referred to as the 'BDA' for brevity), who was the defendant in the suit for bare injunction filed by the respondent. I.A. 1/2008 is now considered for orders.3. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised serious objection to the application being considered having regard to the inordinate delay that is sought to be condoned, it is pointed out by the learned counsel that there is a delay of more than 10 years in preferring the present appeal. This is wholly inexplicable and cannot be condoned. Even assuming that the BDA came to know about the disposal of the suit only on 7.1.2007, the delay of more than 400 days is not explained. The BDA, which is a statutory body, has men and mat...
H.M. Sakamma Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (Kpt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
(Prayer: THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO STRIKING DOWN THE RESPONDENT’S AMENDMENT VIDE ORDER NO.KPTCL/B16/7962/2009-10 DATED 17.08.2010 ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.)1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to strike down the notification dated 17.8.2010 Annexure-L amending the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, Employees [Probation] Regulations and Employees [Seniority] Regulations in so far as it relates to the recruitment and minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Lineman; to quash the notification dated 12.12.2011, Annexure-M inviting applications for the post of Assistant Lineman and for a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to apply for the post of Assistant Lineman.2. The erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board was entrusted with the job of the electrical power transmission and distribution. Subsequently, th...
K.E. Lokesha and Another Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is by A-1 and A-2, who have been convicted by the trial court in respect of Sections 380 and 454 of the I.P.C. The sentence passed was three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.5,000/- fine with six months default sentence for both the offences. The lower appellate court concurred with the trial court.2. The prosecution case in short is that, on 25.10.2004, complainant Suresha and his wife Girijamma left their house at 7.00 a.m. for coolie work and when they came home at 4.00 p.m., they found the back door of the house opened and the tiles of the house had been removed and on checking, the found the zip of the suitcase, which was kept under the cot, was opened and they noticed one pair of hangings and one pair of jumky and one silver coin were stolen. One Raju (P.W.2) informed the couple that he saw the accused roaming near their house. Thereafter, mahazar was conducted and the accused were apprehended and charge was submitted.3. At, the trial, the pro...
Manipal University Vs. Vasantha Kotian
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
(Prayer: THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.07.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THIS WP PASSED BY THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972, MANGALORE AND ORDER IN APPEAL NO.292/10-B2 DATED 11.3.11 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT BANGALORE AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS.)1. Petitioner management is calling in question the order dated 19.07.2010 in Gratuity Application No.48/534/2009-A/M at Annexure-D, passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for sake of brevity) and order dated 11.03.2011 passed in Appeal No.292/2010-B2 at Annexure-G passed by the Appellate Authority.2. Heard Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt. Mangalamba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent-workman. Perused the impugned order as also the documents filed b...
Hdfc Bank Limited. Vs. Ms. S.S.R.B. Food Processing Private Limited.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
1. The petitioner-Bank is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 433(e) and (f) read with Section 434 and 439 of the Companies Act praying that the first respondent-company be wound up by this Court and the Official Liquidator be appointed to take possession of the assets and properties of the company.2. The respondents have appeared and filed their objection statement. The contention put forth in the petition is disputed and in addition, it is pointed out that the petitioner-Bank has already initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recoveries Tribunal and also option under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) has been exercised.3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.4. The petitioner Bank contends that the first respondent had availed loan as per the Term Loan Agreement dated 31.10.2006 and the Master Credit Facility Agree...
Anil Kumar R and ors. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
1. Petitioners in these petitions are accused Nos. 1,2 and 3. Case has been registered against them in Crime No.90/ 2012 by RajagopaLanagara Police, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC.2. These accused have been apprehended on suspicion that they had made a preparation to commit dacoity.3. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is only one case registered against these petitioners.4. Having regard to the same, I find that the petitioners could be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.5. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court,(ii) The petitioners shall regularly- attend the Court on hearing dates.(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »