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.
Mr, Bharath Son of Late Dr. M Jaganathan. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
1. A case is registered against petitioners in Crime No. 126/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120 B r/w 34 IPC.2. As could be Been from the averments of compliant, petitioners had sold land to an extent of 3 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.25 and certain extent of land in Sy No.27 of Jigala Village under registered Sale Deed dated 14,8.2009. Out of the after stated lands, I acre in Sy No.27 and entire extent of 3 acres and 3 guntas had been acquired by KHB vide Notification dated 24.4.2008.3. The first information, prima facie, reveals that petitioners had transferred the lands, which had already been acquired by KHB. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All other contentions are kept open....
Sri B.M. DuggappA. Vs. Sri Gregory Rodrigues, Son of Late Louis Rodrig ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve a dispute, which has arisen out of the agreement for sale dated 2.7.2009.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent herein borrowed a sum of 14,50,000/- for the purpose of purchasing the immovable property bearing Sy.No.64/3BIP9 situated at Marakada village. Mangalore Taluk, measuring 0. MV1 acres and also to discharge his debts and liabilities. The respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner dated 2.7.2009 agreeing to repay Agreement, the original title deeds were handed over to Sri Anil Bekal. As per clause 5 of the said agreement, in the event of any the amount on or before 30.8.2009 at 13% interest. Under the said already dispute, the same shall be resolved by referring to an Arbitrator. H is contended that inspite of repealed requests, the respondent has neither repaid nor made an...
Nagappa Vs. Gangappa
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
B.S. Patil, J 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.08.201 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Hungund in Election Petition No. 1/2010. By the impugned order, the court below has allowed the election petition filed by the respondent herein and has declared him as elected candidate by setting aside the election of the petitioner. 2. Election to the members or the Grama Panchayat, Hiremagi was held on 12.05.2010. The votes were counted or 17.05.2010. It was noticed that the petitioner and the respondent had obtained equal votes i.e. 200 each. Therefore, the method of declaring the candidate elected by lot was adopted as per the Rules. The petitioner emerged successful in the lot and was declared elected. The respondent herein, aggrieved by the decision, filed the election petition challenging the said election. The court below appointed a court commissioner on 2.7.2011 to recount the votes. The court commissioner reported that the respondent had ...
Nagappa Vs. Gangappa
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
B.S. Patil, J 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.08.201 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Hungund in Election Petition No. 1/2010. By the impugned order, the court below has allowed the election petition filed by the respondent herein and has declared him as elected candidate by setting aside the election of the petitioner. 2. Election to the members or the Grama Panchayat, Hiremagi was held on 12.05.2010. The votes were counted or 17.05.2010. It was noticed that the petitioner and the respondent had obtained equal votes i.e. 200 each. Therefore, the method of declaring the candidate elected by lot was adopted as per the Rules. The petitioner emerged successful in the lot and was declared elected. The respondent herein, aggrieved by the decision, filed the election petition challenging the said election. The court below appointed a court commissioner on 2.7.2011 to recount the votes. The court commissioner reported that the respondent had ...
K.M.Nagaraj, Son of K.V.Mariyappa GowdA. Vs. T.C.Govindegowda, Son of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2012
JAWAD RAHIM, J.1. Complainant's appeal against acquittal of the respondent-accused by the judgment impugned in appeal.2. Perused records.3. Material facts needing reference are:a) Appellant sought prosecution of the respondent-T.C.Govindegowda for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) on the plea he had borrowed Rs.70,0007-from him and issued the impugned cheque dated 7.6.1998 drawn on Sringeri Branch of Syndicate Bank. The cheque on presentation was dishonoured necessitating issuance of statutory notice on 19.12.1998.b) Accused received the notice, but failed to comply with the demand made. He denied there was any such transaction with the complainant.c) During trial, complainant tendered evidence as PW1 and produced the impugned cheque at Ex.PI and produced 4 documents. The learned trial judge found the defence of the accused was not tenable and convicted him, directing him to pay Rs.70,000/- covered under th...
Mr. RoshIn Bobby Narnbiar Son of Sri C. Ramaehandran. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
ORDER 1. The offences punishable under Sections 406. 420. 465. 468, 34 of IPC. Petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.3/2012 registered by V.V. Puram Poliee. Mysore City, for the offences puni 471 lead with Sec. 2. The complainant alleges that he had obtained Rural Household Direct Exchange Lines (RDEL) connection from the Reliance Company in 2007 by furnishing his voters' Identity card and passport size photo. However, by using his identity card, nine other connections have been issued in his name in order to claim subsidy from the Central Government. He went to the Area office of Reliance Company In Mysore and asked them to disconnect those nine connections standing in his name and on enquiry, he found that the petitioners were working in the said Company at the relevant time. Despite the same, the connections are continued in his name and he would not be responsible if the said connections were misused for commission of any other crime. Based on the complaint, case ha...
Masood Son of Late Pyaru Sab. Vs. State by Siddapura Police Station.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
1. Petitioner is accused No. 1. He has been charge sheeted by Siddapura Police. Bangalore City, in Crime No.278/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Police on investigation, has filed the chargesheet. The allegation in the complaint is that this accused had harassed the deceased demanding dowry, as a result of which, she committed suicide by hanging herself. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail. 3. Considering the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for quite some time and accused Nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail. I find that the petitioner also 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 swedes for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (ii) He shall regula...
M/S. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. the Central Provide ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
(These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash item No.25 of Appendix to paragraph 27 AA of the EPF scheme produced as Annexure-N, as being ultra vires section 17(2) of the employees provident funds and miscellaneous provisions Act 1952 and in violation of Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India and etc.) Petitioner is seeking for issue of writ of certiorari and to quash Item No.25 of Appendix - A to Paragraph 27AA of the EPF Scheme as being ultra vires of Section 17(2) of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for the sake of brevity) and in violation of Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India and for a further direction to quash the withdrawal order dated 01.06.2011 Annexure-L and a mandamus to 3rd respondent to consider the revised application dated 23.09.2009 Annexure-F of the petitioner for the purpose of exemption as per section 17(2) of the Act. 2....
Hullappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
(Prayer: This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and Decree dated 24-07-2006 passed in OS. No. 242/1999 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) Bidar, Partly Decreeing the Suit for declaration.) 1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against that portion of the decree passed by the trial Court, declining to grant mandatory injunction. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The subject matter of the suit is land bearing Sy.No.29/2 totally measuring 5 acres 5 guntas out of which to the extent of 2 acres is acquired by the Government through defendants for construction of perculation tank at village Karanji, Taluka Aurad, District Bidar in the year 1997-98. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants are Public Officers. It was their bounden duty to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the private property, which is required for public purp...
Kumar Avinash Son of RamachandrA. Vs. State by Lakshmipurara Police St ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
1. Petitioner is accused No. 1. He has been chargesheeted by Lakshmipuram Police, Mysore City, in Crime No. 121/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 364(A) read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The accused had kidnapped the victim for a ransom and he was caught while receiving the amount. No doubt, the petitioner says that he did not kidnap the victim. However, considering the circumstances and the evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation, 1 find that, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. 3. If the petitioner wants to appear for examinations, he can make appropriate application before the trial Court seeking permission to appear for exams or for temporary bail. The Petition is dismissed with the said liberty....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »