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.
T T Naveen Kumar Son of ThimmegowdA. Vs. B Somegowd a Son of Late Bhad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
1. The appeal is by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondent for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888. Heard. From what learned counsel for the appellant has adverted to and also from the records, the following facts emerge.2. The appellant - T T Naveen Kumar sought prosecution of E. Somegowda - respondent herein on the allegation that for valuable consideration of 2,00,000/-rcceived, the respondent - accused issued cheque No.660519 dated 14.6.2001. The cheque, on presentation to the Bank was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Notice issued demanding payment of the amount covered under the cheque on 18.6.2001 was received by the accused, but he failed to comply.3. During the trial, accused entered appearance and denied the liability. He categorically averred that the complainant had received from him a sum of 2,00,000/-in the year 1998 and thereafter repaid the same. The cheque issued by him was not in relation to any transact...
State of KarnatakA. Vs. Hariprasad at Raju So Late RamannA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
1. The State is n appeal against the acquittal of the respondents - accused for the offences punishable under section 49SA and 324 read with section 34 of IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Heard.3. From the records, it is clear on the basis of complaint submitted by PW. 1 - Padmavathi against her husband - Hariprasad @ Raju arraigned as Accused No. I and his mother PuUathayamma and maternal Uncle Puttaswamy and N Papanna @ Dairy Papanna arraigned as Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.4. The trial was conducted. During trial, prosecution examined in all six witnesses and produced five documents.5. The learned trial Judge found evidence insufficient to establish the charge and acquitted the accused. The State is in appeal.6. Mr. Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned Government Pleader, submits that evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge of cruelty, harassment and demand for dowry. He took me through the evidence on record.7. I have perused the evidence and k...
Vijaya Kumar M Son of Muniyappa Vs. Sri Dr Mruthunjaya D Hulgar Son of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
1. The petitioner has made an application to send the cheques to the Kind Writing Expert The trial Court and also the revisional Court have rejected the request. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.2. The matter are taken up for hearing. The learned Counsel for petitioner has made available the Agreement of Sale and also the cancellation of Agreement of Sale, which were the only two transactions between parties, which resulted in issuance of cheques in question. The contentions raised by accused whether cheques are supported by consideration whether cheques were issued to discharge legally recoverable debt, will have to be determined by taking into consideration the contents of Agreement of Sal dated 9.12.2004 and the registered cancellation of agreement dated 22.3.2005. Therefore, there is no need for sending cheques to the Hand Writing Expert.3. Petitioner are dismissed with these observation....
The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal is a typical example of the most cantankerous and irresponsible manner in which the nationalized Insurance Companies function in our Country.2. In the present appeal, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was the insurer providing cover to the owner of a lorry bearing Reg.No.Ka-37/5426, owner by name, Mahmad Hussain Mehboob Sah, has been arrayed as respondent No.6 in this appeal and the policy is issued by the Insurance Company in favour of the said owner, which has covered the risks of the insured not only in respect of the claim under the Motor Vehicle Act, but also claims arising out of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 [for short, the Act].3. The driver of the vehicle had died on 17.03.2006 while in the course of employment, but not exactly while driving the vehicle. In respect of this incident, a claim application seeking for compensation had been filed before the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Bellary Division, Davanagere. The...
Sangappa Ramappa Jampur Vs. Honnappa and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
(Prayer: RFA Filed U/S 96 of CPC Against The Judgment And Decree DT.2.11.2006 Passed In O.S.NO.42/1998 On The File Of The Civil Judge (SR.DN.) And PRL.JMFC., Ranebennur. Partly Decreeing The Suit For Partition And Separate Possession.) D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.42/1998 on the file of the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Prl. JMFC at Ranebennur is the appellant u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Suit was one for partition of the joint family properties impleading the elder brother 0.of the plaintiff as the 1st defendant; elder sister of the plaintiff as the 2nd defendant, daughter of the 2nd defendant as the 3rd defendant and the step mother of the plaintiff as the 4th defendant Plaintiff had claimed half share in the suit schedule properties and it is not in dispute that suit items 1A1 and 1A2, the two parcels of agricultural land abutting one another had been purchased in the name of the 1st defendant. The first purchase was on 02.05.1945 when the 1st defen...
Authorized Officer Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bharat Engineering Com ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal Is Filed Under Secion 4 of The Karnataka High Court Act, Praying To Set Aside The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Single Judge Of This Court In W.P.NO.80720/2010 On 8.7.2010 And Any Other Relief Which The Appellant Found May Kindly Be Granted.) H.G. Ramesh, J. Oral: 1. By consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, the appeal is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this judgment. This appeal is by the Karnataka Bank Ltd. and is directed against the order dated 8th July 2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing writ petition No.80720/2010 filed by respondent No.1 borrower. 2. Facts in brief: Respondent No.1 had availed a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- from the appellant Bank. Demanding repayment of the said loan, the Bank had issued a notice under section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, ('the Act' for short). Since respondent No.1 did not comply with the ...
S. Bhyrappa Vs. Mysore City Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
(Prayer: This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.2010 passed in R.A.No.1129/2009 on the file of the V Addl. District judge, Mysore, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2008 passed in O.S.No.326/2006 on the file of the IV Addl I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mysore.)1. This is a plaintiff’s second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2008 of the IV Additional I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mysore, dismissing O.S.No.326/2006 and the judgment and decree dated 15.6.2010 of the V Additional District Judge, Mysore, dismissing R.A.No.1129/2009.2. The appellant instituted O.S.No.326/2006 arraigning the respondent as defendant, for the following reliefs:“a) declaring that the demand of double the house tax in respect of schedule premises is illegal, unauthorised and without sanction of law.b) awarding suitable damages for his illegal and unauthorised act in ...
Sri Siddaharth Narayan Vs. the Central Bureau of Investigation Bs and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Subhash B. Adi, J:1. The petitioner is accused No.4 in RC No. 3(E) 2011 registered on 27.04.2011 by CBI, Bs and FC, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) r/w Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988.2. This mater was heard earlier also. The learned Counsel appearing for CBI has requested for time so as to enable it to complete the investigation. During the course of the argument, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner mentioned that accused Nos.1 i.e., Deputy General Manager and Branch head, Central bank of India, Corporate Finance Branch, Mumbai and accused No.2, the then Assistant General Manager and Branch head, Central bank of India, Corporate Finance Branch, Mumbai, though, they are accused in this case they have not been arrested and the investigation is completed on the ground that they co-operated with investigation.3. This petitioner has been is judicial custody for almost 6...
Vadiraja Shetty and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
1. These appeals assail the order dated 11.08.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing several writ petitions challenging the Government Order dated 02.02.2009 bifurcating the South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank, which was/is one of the writ petitioners/appellants before us.2. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Single Judge has passed a very brief order and all the arguments raised have not been duly considered.3. The provisions that have been cited before us are Section 14, the deleted Section 14-A and Section 30-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. We reproduce these provisions for facility of reference:“14.) Amalgamation transfer of assets and liabilities and division of co-operative societies - (1) A co-operative society may, by a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting at a general meeting of the society.(a) divide itself into two or more co0operative societies: or(...
The Divisional Manager, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
1. Sri B.A.Jayaram. M/s Janatha Travel Service, No.8, Tank Bund Road, Bangalore-5600 09, was the owner of bus bearing registration No.KA-03-4750. The said person had obtained the insurance coverage in respect of the said bus from the appellant. On 9.8.2006 at 8.30 a.m., in front of Manish Tower on J.C.Road, Bangalore, on account of raise and negligent driving of the said bus by its driver, an accident occurred resulting in Miss T.N.Shruthi, the 1st respondent herein, sustaining injuries. A case was registered in Crime No.114/2006 for offences under Sec.279 and 337 IPC in the Ulsoor Gate Traffic Police Station. Police having investigated the crime, driver of the bus was charge sheeted. Miss T.N.Shruihi, the victim, having sustained injuries, after obtaining treatment, filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the appellant and the 2na respondent herein. Case was registered as MVC 759/2006 in the MACT, Bangalore. The appellant was the 1" respondent in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »