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.
Vinay Vijayadev Son of Vijayadev. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2012
1. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.30/2012 registered by Halasurgate Police, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is the apprehension of the petitioners that they may be apprehended in connection with Crime No.30/2012 or any other crime that may be registered by Police on the basis of complaint of respective wife of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Petitioners have produced documents to show that accused No.l has Tiled M.C. No.3194/2011 and accused No.2 has filed M.C. No.3195/2011 and both are filed for divorce and the complainant i.e. the wife of petitioner No. 1 and wife of petitioner No.2 have also filed C. Misc. petitions under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and it appears that the matter was in progress. At that stage, this complaint has been filed.3. It appears that petitione...
Sri.Mahendra Son of Late Mnanjappa Vs. Sri. G Bhaskaran Son of V.Govin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court They have Sled an application for amendment of plaint The Trial Court has rejected the said application on two grounds, one is that no particulars of the sale deed on which the amendment is sought, are mentioned, and the second is that the 3rd plaintiff who was minor and was represented by next friend, had attained majority and despite attaining majority, for about 3 years he did not choose to prosecute the suit and thereafter, has come up for amendment As against the said rejection, this writ petition is filed.2. Even otherwise also, the suit is one for partition. The defendants have set up that there is a salt in their favour. The issues arising in the suit are whether the suit schedule property is a joint family property and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any share in the said property.3. In view of the same, the amendment sought does not call for consideration. The entire burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the...
N. M. Neelakanta Kas Officer Son of N.M.MaregowdA. Vs. State by Ulsoor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
1. Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.267/2011 registered by Ulsoorgale Police, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 219 and 420 of.2. The complaint arises in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. The Aircraft Employees" House Building Cooperative Society Limited have tiled a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No. 13593/2007 interalia seeking a direction to the Government to handover possession of Sy.No. 112 measuring 4 acres 13 juntas for the purpose of house building as the said land was acquired for the benefit of the Society. In the said writ petition, the second respondent was the Special Land Acquisition Officer. At that relevant point of time, the accused herein was working as Special Land Acquisition Officer between July 2007 and January 201 1. He had filed the counter to the writ petition. In the counter, it was stated as under:"the 2nd respondent has taken steps to hand over the lands to the petitioner - Society." B...
Bharath Electronics Contract Labour Union, Bangalore, Rep. by Its Gene ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dtd 4.11.10 in I.D.No.184/2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore produced at Anenx-K and direct the respondent to absorb the services of the petitioners and extend all consequential benefits which are extended in favour of the permanent employees of the respondent since from their initial appointment.)1. Petitioners are calling in question the award dated 4.11.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.184/2005 whereunder the dispute referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate Government under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be rejected.2. The appropriate Government by order dated 27.10.2005 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore to adjudicate as to whether respondent-management was justified in not absorbing the services of the petitioners and rejecting their prayer for being paid the wages ...
Britannia Industries Limited Vs. Vinpack (India) Private Limited Being ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. The appellant in MFA No. 11685/2011 is questioning the order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District dated 5lh November 2011 passed in AA No.28/2011.2. Similarly, the appeal in MFA No.8281/2011 is filed challenging the order of the aforesaid Court dated 20th August 2011 passed in AA No.26/2011. Both the petitions were filed by M/s. Britannia Industries Limited against M/s. Vinpack (India) Private Limited under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act3. After arguing the matter at length without prejudice to both the parties respondent in MFA No. 1 1^85/2011 has agreed to return the machinaries and equipments of the appellant subject to the appellant paying a sum of Rs. 19,25,000/- subject to the out come of the arbitration which would be initiated by both the parties to resolve their dispute in terms of the arbitration clause of the contract entered into between them dated 10.07.2000.4. Accordingly the counsel for the appellant in MFA No. 116...
Sri. Thalangara Mukthar Abdulla Son of Thalanara Ibrahim Khalul Vs. th ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. Learned counsel For the petitioner submits that an error has crept to the prayer column regarding the make of the vehicle, makes a request to carryout the correction and to amend. Request granted.2. Mr. Shivayogiswamy, AGA takes notice for respondents.3. The petitioner has sought for quashing a check report dated 16.11.2011 issued by the third respondent thereby seizing the vehicle in question belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus to the authorities to return the driving licence and the documents related to the car in question. Apparently the check report is in the nature of the show cause notice to which the petitioner is required to fik? his reply. The question of quashing the check report in the circumstances does not arise. Insofar as impounded documents are concerned, the authorities are required to return the documents after taking necessary indemnity bond.Hence the following :ORDER1. The petitioner shall take Annexure-A as show cau...
H.N.Sidddappa Son of Late H.M. NanjundappA. Vs. Ms. Edm Formatics P. L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. The petitioner is an applicant in Misc. 1102/2010, The said miscellaneous was filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2010 in O.S.No. 10091/2005. The said miscellaneous is pending and in the pending miscellaneous tin application was filed by the plaintiff - petitioner for staying the operation of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 10091/2005 mainly on the ground that the petitioner has also filed a separate suit and in the said suit, issue No.6 is framed as to whether the suit filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not on the basis of the decree passed in O.S.No.10091/2005.2. Admittedly, for the default of the petitioner, the suit had been decreed. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for setting aside the decree or not, is yet to be ascertained. Evan according to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defendant was represented in the suit and contested for some time and thereafter his counsel did not appear. In my opinion, ...
Shivappa at Shivanne Gowda, Son of Siddaratne GowdA. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.17 in Crime No.71/2005 of Beechanahaili Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 427, 332, 333, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, during the investigation of the said case, according to the Investigating Officer, tins petitioner was not traced. Therefore, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences showing this petitioner and accused Nos.1, 9, 10, 18, 19, and 20 as absconding. After the climmittal of the case to the Court of Sessions, registered as S.C.No.80/2007 before the Past Track Court - IV. Mysore, except this petitioner, all other accused persons appeared before the Sessions Court and took their trial. After a full fledged trial, the Sessions Court by judgment dated 28.08.2011 acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 16, 18, 19 and 20 of all the charges levelled against them. It appears the petitioner herein met with ...
Sri.Maruthi Prasad Son of Sanjeevappa Vs. Sri.Thippeswamy Son of Govin ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. This writ petition is by the Plaintiff challenging the order on IA.3 dated 4.1.2012 in O.S.No.90/2010.2. Applicants had filed an application seeking to come on record as defendant Nos.2 to 5. The suit is one for specific performance of the contract against defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 was not served with the suit summons as he was not found. Thereafter, the plaintiff took the paper publication and by way of substituted service, defendant No.1 is deemed to have been served. Wife and minor children of Evidence No.1 filed IA3 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure inter-alia stating that defendant No.1 has not been heard for the last more than five years and if they are not permitted to contest the matter, it will defeat their interest.3. No doubt, there a no legal death as required, but, from the circumstances, it appears that defendant No.1 was not heard and nobody represented defendant No.1. If the applicant persons are not permitted to affect contest the matter, the ...
Smt. B.S. Rekha, Wife of Sri. Mohan Kumar at Satish B.K. Vs. Sri. Moha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. Petitioners have filed I.A.No.14 in M.C. No. 1659/2001 dated 21.07.2010 under Section 26 of the Hindi: Marriage Act. 1955 on the tile of Principal Judge, Family Court. Bangalore for payment of a sum of Rs. 36,775/- towards educational expenses of the 2nd petitioner herein. Petitioners have also produced certain documents along with the said application in order to establish that 1st petitioner has spent a sum of 36,755/- towards educational expenses. The Court below has rejected the said application by order dated 21.07.2010. The petitioners have called in question the validity of the said order in this writ petition.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. In a previous writ, petition filed by petitioners in Writ petition No.21548/2005 disposed of on 14.05.2007, this Court had reserved liberty to the petitioners to file an application claiming educational expenses of the 2ntl petitioner from the date of disposal of l.A.No.14.4. The submission of the learned counsel fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »