Karnataka Court February 2012 Judgments

Shri Musakkar Nawas Son of Musakkar. Vs. Sthe. Senior Intelligence Off ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner is accused No.1 He has bee charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 21. 23, 25A, 27A, 28 and 29 of N.D.F.S Act.2. On investigation, the charge-sheet is filed Report shorts that the petitioner was possessing 5,985 Kgs of Ephedrine worth of Rs. 1. 48 Crores.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner-accused No.1 was not possessing the same but it was found in possession of the accused No.3. Further, he submitted that even according to the prosecution case it is controlled drug, It is not schedule drug prohibited under N.D.P.S Act. Mere possession of controlled drug does not amount to the offence punishable under Sections 23 and 24 of N.D.P.S. Act4 Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is a notification under Section for of N.D.P.S. Act and ix is now colored under Section 25(a) of N.D.RS. Act punishable with imprisonment of 10 years and payment of line which may extend to Rs.1,00,000/-.Though, th...

Tata Capital Limited. Vs. Manipal Motors Private Limited.

Court: Karnataka

1. CA No.45/2012 is filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the order dated 08.09.2010.2. By the order dated 08.09.2010. this Court had permitted the petitioner to take back the notice as at Annexure-O as the notice produced therein was not relevant in the instant petition and in that context, the petitioner was permitted to file the appropriate copy of Annexure-O namely, the statutory notice issued to the respondent. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner possessed only a copy of the notice issued to the respondent to be produced at Annexure-O since according to the petitioner, the original of the notice and the acknowledgement has already been produced in the arbitration proceedings pending before the High Court of Mumbai. It is in that context, the petitioner has filed the instant application stating therein that the certified copy of the notice and the postal acknowledgement has been obtained from the High Court of Mumbai from the papers in the said proceedings and the petition...

State by Lokayuktha Police, Mysore. Vs. C V Sheelavanth, So Vtrupaksha ...

Court: Karnataka

V.JAGANNATHAN, J.1. This criminal appeal is by the State-Lokayukta calling in question the acquittal of the respondent in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the respondent-accused being a public servant working as a Drug Inspector, Mysore, demanded Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant Dr. Sharath Kumar as illegal gratification to release the drug boxes seized from the shop of the complainant. Pursuant to the aforesaid demand being made, the complainant approached the Lokayukta police with his complaint Ex.PI. This was followed by the entrustment mahazar being drawn as per Ex.P2 when the complainant went to the house of the accused on 28.12.91 between 8.00 p.m. and 8.25 p.m. It is the prosecution case that the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 10.000/- following the demand made by the accused and the accused received the same in his hands, counted them and put th...

Lekmichand JaIn Son of Manik Lal Maloo. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in Crime No.344/ 2011 registered by Hassan Extension Police, Hassan, for an offence punishable under Section 393 of IPC.2. There is no complaint registered against this petitioner. However, it is alleged that the police are trying to arrest in connection with the above mentioned crime though the complaint and information received by the police does not mention the name of this petitioner.3. Considering the same, I find that the petitioner could be granted anticipatory bail subject to certain condition.4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions:1) In the event of the arrest in Crime No. 344/2011 of Hassan Extension Police Station, Hassan, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing u personal bond for a sum of 25,000/-with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer2) The petitioner shall co-operate with the I.O. for inves...

Smt. S. Nagarathna Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.11.2011 vide Annexure-L. By filing the said representation, the petitioner has prayed for an allotment of alternative sit in his favour in BTM Layout, Bangalore or in HSR Layout, Bangalore, measuring 60’ x 40’.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to get the relief in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority versus Smt. Radha Bai and Others, 2001(4) Kar L J, 196 : ILR 2001 Kar,416.3. Records reveal that the petitioner is stated to have purchased the site formed in Sy. Nos. 12/5 and 14/6 of Tavarekere Village, Bangalore South Taluk. Said lands were acquired for formation of BTM Layout. The petitioner and other site owners filed W.P. Nos 30571 to 30594 of 1982. The said writ petitions came to be allowed directing the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioners therein for grant of alternati...

M. R. Manjunath Vs. the Authorized Officer and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012ILR(Kar)2627

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to call for entire records on the file of the 1st Respondent in DTCR No.111/2005-06, dated 21.04.2010 and quash the order dated 21.04.2010 passed in DTCR No.111/2005-06 by the 1st Respondent herein under annexure A and etc.,) 1. Petitioner is before this court assailing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur in Criminal Appeal No.94/2010 decided on 19.4.2011 confirming the order passed by the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise confiscating the vehicle in question. 2. Sans details, the facts can be stated as under: On 18.12.2005 at around 10.30 pm, Ravikumar, CPI, N R Pura Circle lodged a complaint before the PSI at Balehonnur Police Station which was registered in Crime No.125/2005 for the offence punishable under section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short ‘the Act’] read with section 171 of the Indian Penal Code. ...

Honnamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. It is the case of the petitioners that certain of the lands are acquired by respondent 4 for the purpose of rehabilitating the displaced persons in Bhadra Project. The lands of the petitioners and other villagers of Karekatte Village were taken over by the Government under acquisition proceedings. According to the petitioners, the Government had taken possession of 13 acres 36 guntas belonging to the petitioners i.e. 3 acres 21 guntas in Survey No. 58/1P1 belonging to the first petitioner, 3 acres 19 guntas in Survey No. 56/1 belonging to the second petitioner, 3 acres 21 guntas in Survey No. 56/2 belonging to the third petitioner, 1 acre 22 acre guntas in Survey No. 57/1P2 belonging to the fourth petitioner and 1 acre 33 guntas in Survey No. 57/1P1 belonging to the fifth petitioner. However, the final notification came to be issued under Section 6(1)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 20th July, 2009 acquiring 30 acres 1 gunta instead of 41 acres 1 gunta. Thus, the petitioners hav...

Smt. Ramya Vs. the Chief Manager and Authorised Officer (Sarc), State ...

Court: Karnataka

1. I have heard Sri S. Nagaraju, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.2. In this case, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the notice at Annexure-C, dated 5.3.2010 whereby the Authorised Officer of State Bank of India, the first respondent herein has called upon one P. Gopalakrishna to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property in question to enable him to handover the same to the successful tenderer in the auction proposed to be conducted by the Bank. In the notice, P.Gopalakrishna was informed that a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) was issued to Smt. Vasantha Venkatachalam, the guarantor to the loan transaction. Since the payment was not made, constructive possession of the property was taken on 13.1.2009.3. Petitioner is the daughter of Smt. Vasantha Venkatachalam. It is her case that the guarantee offered by her mot...

Kempahanumiah Vs. M/S. Allied Motors and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayers: THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.01.2007 PASSED IN OS NO.2202/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, CCH NO.23, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.THIS MISC. CVIL.9123/2010 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO PERMIT THE IMPLEADING APPLICANT, WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS IS GIVEN BELOW, TO COME ON RECORD AS PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.5 IN THE ABOVE CASE AND ETC.)1. This appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the judgement and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit filed by him for ejectment, mesne profits and other reliefs against respondents 1 to 4 herein.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal would be referred to by their rankings as they are arrayed in the suit before Trial Court.3. The suit schedule property is the property bearing No.29 situated at Avalahalli, Uttarahalli, Mysore road, Bangalore - 26 measuring of 7000 sq.ft. morefully describe...

Smt. Sulochana, Wo. Late H.S. Shamachar and anr. Vs. General Manager, ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Mother and unmarried sister of H.S.Salhya Kumar, who sustained fatal injuries in a road traffic accident on 14.6.2009 and died, dissatisfied with the compensation of 2,40,000/- awarded by the MACT, have filed this appeal seeking enhancement.2. Respondent has not questioned the judgment/award passed by the MACT, directing payment of assessed compensation amount in favour of the appellants/claimants.3. Sri M.R. Shashidhar, learned counsel for the appellants contends, that there being credible evidence with regard to the earnings of the deceased at 8,500/- p.m., the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased on notional basis at 6,000/- p.m. Learned counsel submitted that the age of younger parent being 65 years, the Tribunal has committed error in the matter of application of the multiplier. As against the multiplier of the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 5 and as a result, the loss of dependency assessed is on the lower side.4. Sri K.Nagaraja, learned...