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.
Sri Manjunath Adiga Son of Prabhakara AdigA. Vs. the State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. This is the second round petition filed by the petitioner seeking his enlargement on bail The petitioner had filed petition in Criminal Petition No .918/ 2012 and this Court had declined to grant hail for the present on 14.02.2012.2. Today the learned Counsel for the petitioner has moved this petition on the ground that, the petitioner's father died on 22.02 2012 and he is the only son, he has to perform test rituals of his, father.3. Considering the circumstances and the demise of the father of the petitioner, though I have rejected the application for hail by earlier order, for the purpose of conducting last rituals and he being the only son, I grant temporary bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is enlarged on bail for a period of 20 days from the date of release subject to certain conditions.4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two...
Sri. Raja at Rajanna Son of Buddathimmanaika and ors. Vs. Sri.Rangappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. This writ petition is by the defendants-2, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.293/1994.2. The second defendant had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the written statement viz. paragraph-8, incorporating that, some of suit item Nos. 1 to 15, which were staled as inam land, are self-acquired property.3. Undisputedly, he had stated in the original written statement stating that, item Nos.1 to 15 schedule properties are inam land and that admission was on record. Now the said admission is sought to be deleted. He has also stated that, there are two registered Will executed in 2003 and registered in 2006. Application for amendment is filed in 2011. Admittedly, the said fact was also within the knowledge of the defendant No.2 since 1994. Suit has not been progressed for one or the other reason.4. Having regard to the circumstances and also the admissions made by the defendant No.2 in the earlier written statement, now he cannot be permitted to deny the admissions, which h...
S. Basavarajappa Vs. the District Commissioner and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. Misc. W.No. 3937/2011 filed for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is allowed.2. The admitted facts are that the land in question was granted to the father of the respondent No. 3, who belonged to Scheduled Caste community, in 1955-56. The land was purchased by the appellant on 20/11/1987. On 06/12/2006, an application was preferred by the contesting respondent - Sri Ramanaik, praying for the restoration of the possession of the land. The application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere, on 24/10/2007, ordering that the sale deed pertaining to the disputed land was declared as null and void, as per the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (in short “PTCL Act”). The Assistant Commissioner further directed that the disputed land be resumed to Government under Section 5(1)(a) of PTCL Act and as per Section 5(1)(b) of PTCL Act, the land be restored “in favour of gran...
Sri Khalid Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
V. Suri Appa Rao, J:1. This petition is filed to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.1464/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) and JMFC, Puttur.2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in the above case, other accused No.1, 2 and 4 who are charged for the offences punishable U/s. 447, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that, there was dispute with regard to connection of water tap between the complainant and the accused persons. It is further alleged that, on 11.11.1999, when the complainant was in his land doing agricultural work, other accused persons trespassed into the land along with deadly weapons and assaulted one Phakeerabba-PW.2. Immediately, PW-2 has been shifted to the Government hospital for treatment and the police registered the case in Crime No.81/1999. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, Puttur police filed the charge sheet against all the accused persons in CC No. 109/2000. As the petitioner was found absconding...
B L Harini, Wo. S Satish. Vs. S Satish S Shanmukha Son of Late Somashe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
1. Certainly the Court would have entertained this writ petition under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code seeking transfer of the proceeding from the Family Court at Bangalore to the Court at Chkkmagaiur. But however, after appearance, objections are filed and the respondent- husband has let in evidence. Since the husband was not cross-examined, the matter is set down for arguments.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an application is moved for recalling the said order and wife has sought to cross-examine the husband and also to lead evidence. The said applications are pending consideration.3. I am of the view that at this stage, the question of transfer of the proceeding from the Family Court at Bangalore to the Family Court at Cheikmagalur does not arise inasmuch as the trial is almost half way. The applications filed by the petitioner/wife to recall the husband for cross examination and to toad her evidence are required to be considered by the Family Court a...
Ms. Nitesh Estates Limited, Formerly Known as Nitesh Estates Private L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Sections 11(5) and 6(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation ACI. 1996 (for short the Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve a dispute, which has arisen out of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.8.2008.2. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of promoting land development, construction of houses, multi-storied residential villas, commercial, office buildings and all other incidental matters related thereto and possesses the requisite skills, knowledge, experience, expertise, infrastructure and resources. The respondent is the representative of Anjali Geetha Shukla, who is none other than the sister of the respondent and owner of the immovable property measuring 4764.76 mtrs situated at Victoria Layout (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property') under the limits of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. It is contended...
Smt Rameeza Bi Wo. Late S Abdul Kareem and ors. Vs. Union of India Min ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
1. This matter is listed for orders. However, the matter itself is considered on merit.2. Petitioners - plaintiffs have filed the writ petition questioning the order dated 21.04.2011 passed on I.A. No.4 in O.S. No. 1846/2011 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.3. Trial Court office had raised objection as regard to the proper valuation of the suit and payment of court fee. The said objection was overruled. Thereafter, defendants filed an application in I.A. No.4 under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 10.03.2011 and direct the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee on the market value of the subject matter. The trial Court has allowed the said application as against which, this writ petition is tiled.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relief sough for by the plaintiffs is for declaration that the notice dated 19.02.2011 issued by the defendants under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. 1971. is voi...
The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ms. Bpl Engineering.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
1. This appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which held though the income is computed under Section 115JA the provision of Section 115J or 115JA are not materially different. Sub-section (4) of Section 115JA no doubt mentions that other provisions of the Act are also applicable. However, the same were applicable when income was computed under Section 115J itself: Though the income is computed under Section 115JA. interest under Section 234B and 234C are not chargeable and accordingly the appeal of the revenue was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue has preferred this appeal.2. This appeal was admitted on 21.2.2006 to consider the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act cannot he levied against the assesse as the computation of income has been made under Section 115JA of the Act?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in taking into co...
Sunil Kumar Son of Sri. Kirbakaran. Vs. State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
1. Petitioner is accused in Crime No.39/2011 registered by Champion Police, KGF. for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307. 341. 498-A read with Section 149 it IPC.2. On investigation, chargesheet has been filed, the wound certificate reveals four injuries, which are simple In nature.3. Considering filing of charges heel and the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for quite some time. I find that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail.Accordingly, the 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 likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.(ii) He shall regularly attend the Court on hearing days(iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses....
D.G.Rudresh Son of Govindappa and anr. Vs. State Represented by Davang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
1. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 227/20II registered by Davanagere Rural Police, Davanagere, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406. 468. 471. 473 read with Section 34 of IPC.2. One Sri B.K. Suresh filed a complaint inter alia alleging that accused No. 1, President of Anagodu Village Panchayat and accused No.2. who is the mother of accused No.1 have fabricated panchayat documents by creating non-existent property and deleting the name of the real owner of the site -Smt, Sowbhagyamma and has allotted the same to one Gurushan that all and Thimma Shetty. Accused No. 1 has abused his power and has fabricated the panchayath documents for personal gain. On the basis of private complaint, the learned Magistrate has referred the same to the Police for Investigation.3. Petitioners have produced the order of the Zilla Panchayat dated 11.11.2010. Which shows that allotment of all the sites in Janata Colony made by Anagodu Grama Panchayat stood cancelled and the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »