Karnataka Court March 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.
M. Venkataramanappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 29.3.2011 vide Annexure-P, as being arbitrary and illegal with a further direction directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits, etc.)1. The petitioner has called into question the first respondent’s order, dated 29.3.2011 (Annexure-P) annulling the Ph.D, degree awarded to the petitioner, on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Commission as his thesis contained plagiarized passages.2. Sri Subramanya Jois, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Government Order is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law. He submits that neither the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 (‘the said Act’ for short) nor the Bangalore University’s Regulations provide for the annulment of Ph. D. degree by the Government. He submits that as per Section 70 of the said Act, it is only the Syndicate which...
M/S. Renaissance Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayanth Sringeri and Another
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Ramanna, President This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party 1 against the order dated 20.01.2011 passed by the II Addl., DF, Bangalore in Complaint No. 2909/2009 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 came to be allowed directing the appellant/Opposite Party 1 to handover the possession of the flat No. 0002 in Block G in the Ground Floor in Renaissance Jagrithi Phase II to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order. However directed the Opposite Party 1 to pay Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation for delay in handing over the possession of the flat. Failure to handover the possession within 30 days, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- p.m will continue to be payable to the complainant till handing over the possession of actual possession of the flat. The Opposite Party 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the same, it has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. ...
Sri. Lakshminarayanaswamy Charities. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore City.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.3. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The plaintiff was a Charitable trust, h was a suit for a permanent injunction The plaintiffs case was as follows:The suit property was a portion of land bearing Survey No.25, on Thimmaiah Road, near Miller Tank Bund, formerly known as Venkatappa Garden. Bilekahalli. It was kharab land. The total extent of land was 1 acre and 10 gunts. The plaintiff claimed that this property originally belonged to one Venkataswamappa and that he had bequeathed the suit property to R.Narayanaswamy under a will dated 10.12.1941 and Narayanaswamy had created a public trust on 24.10.1956 and the suit schedule property was given to the plaintiff - trust.It was further contended that the suit property was in the possession and enjoyment of Venkataswamappa till his death. Thereafter, it had d...
The Bangalore City Corporation Vs. Miss. Maria Jamal, Do. Md. Kamal Mu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.The appellant herein was the defendant in the suit. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the land bearing Survey Nos. 16, 18 and 25 of Bilekahalli, measuring about 13 acres m all, known as Venkatappa Gardens belonged to one Venkataswamappa @ Venkataswamy. The premises bearing No. 8, subsequently numbered as 324 and about 11 houses adjacent- to the said lands were purchased by the said Venkataswamy, Rangamma and one Papaiah in the year 1896, which was subsequently sold to Rangamma, the sister of the said Venkataswamy in the year 1918. It is further contended that Venkataswamy, as the owner of the lands, sold some of the lands and the remaining lands were bequeathed to one R.Narayana Swamy, his nephew, as per will dated 8.12.1941 and by another will dated 10.12.1941. Venkataswamy had subsequently died. It is hence contended that...
State of KarnatakA. Vs. Padmavathi Do. Narayana Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
1. The State is in appeal against acquittal of the respondent for offence under Section 3(l)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. Heard the learned appellant's counsel Sri.Raja Subramanya Bhat.3. The counsel for the respondent/accused is absent and there is no representation.4. Perusal of the records shows on the basis of a report submitted by PWl-Thayamma on 10.01.2002, a case came to be registered against the accused for offence punishable under Section 3(l)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the allegation that while the accused was working as a teacher in Government Primary School, Basavanagudi at Bangalore, the accused abused the complainant at 3.45 p.m. on 03.01.2002 in the presence of other teachers and staff working in the school referring to her caste with a deliberate intention to commit atrocity on her.5. The report was investigated after filing of the charge sheet, the respondent/acc...
State by Excise Inspector Shimoga Police. Vs. Pachhappa Son of Annamal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
1. Heard2. This is a State's appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section. 32, 34, 38(A) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act.3. Heard the leaned HCGP Sri-Raja Subramanya Bhat.4. The counsel for the respondent/accused is absent.5. The perusal of the records shows that the Inspector of Excise, Shimoga, initiated investigation against the accused and conducted a raid at 11.45 a.m. on 25.09.1998 and found the respondent/accused was In possession of 8.640 liter of non-tax paid Indian liquor. It was stored in front of his house situate at Tamillians Street, Mattur village/ Shimoga Taluk. On being questioned, the accused failed to produce any documents regarding payment of tax and excise over the quantity of liquor in his possession. Consequently, it was seized.6. On culmination of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and accused was put to that. The Inspector of Excise concerned did not produce any witness during the trial to support the charge...
Lakshminarayanaswamy Charities, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.3. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The plaintiff was a charitable trust. It was a suit for a permanent injunction. The plaintiff’s case was as follows.-The suit property was a portion of land bearing Survey No.25, on Thimmaiah Road, near Miller Tank Bund, formerly known as Venkatappa Garden, Bilekahalli. It was kharab land. The total extent of land was 1 acre and 10 guntas. The plaintiff claimed that this property originally belonged to one Venkataswamappa and that he had bequeathed the suit property to R. Narayanaswamy under a Will dated 10-12-1941 and Narayanaswamy had created a public trust on 24-10-1956 and the suit schedule property was given to the plaintiff-trust.It was further contended that the suit property was in the possession and enjoyment of Venkataswamappa till his death. Thereafter...
Bangalore City Corpn., Bangalore Vs. Md. M. Kamal Dead by Lrs. and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.The appellant herein was the defendant in the suit. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the land bearing Survey Nos.16, 18 and 25 of Bilekahalli, measuring about 13 acres in all, known as Venkatappa Gardens belonged to one Venkataswamappa alias Venkataswamy. The premises bearing No.8, subsequently numbered as 324 and about 11 houses adjacent to he said lands were purchased by the said Venkataswamy. Rangamma and one Papaiah in the year 1896, which was subsequently sold to Rangamma, the sister of the said Venkataswamy in the year 1918. It is further contended that Venkataswamy, as the owner of the lands, sold some of the lands and the remaining lands were bequeathed to one R. Narayana Swamy, his nephew, as per will dated 8.12.1941 and by another will dated 10.12.1941. Venkataswamy had subsequently died. It is hence contended that R. Narayana Swam...
Smt. Sharadamma Do MallikarjunappA. Vs. M. Devarajappa Son of A.T. Mal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. Petitioner has sought for transfer of MC.No. 1410/2011 from the file or the IV Additional Family Court, Bangalore to Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tarikere for further hearing.2. Petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Junior College, whereas the respondent is a Teacher working in a school run by the Defence Department. The petitioner is now posted to work at Tarikere Town and whereas the respondent is working at Bangalore. On certain allegations, the respondent has filed petition for divorce against the petitioner herein. The matter is being heard. The examination-in-chief of the respondent herein is already recorded by the Trial Court, Now the matter is posted for cross-examination of the respondent herein.3. The marriage of the parties took place on 2.11,2003 and two children are born out of the wed¬lock. Both the children are with the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned advocate fo...
Zakeer Ahamed Son of Rehamansah. Vs. Ms Mysore Acetate and Chemicals L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. The petitioner is accused in both the petitions in Crime No.82/1995 and 69/1996, respectively registered by Mulbagal police, Mulbagal for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. However, in one case, charge sheet shows offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and in another case, it show offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. However, reading of the charge sheet show that the offence is punishable under Section 379 of IPC.2. The allegation is that the vehicle parked outside the house was stolen. Since the petitioner has been in judicial custody in both the cases and charge sheet is filed, I find that the petitioner could been enlarged on bail in both the cases.3. Accordingly, petitions are allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for Rs 25,000/- each petition with two solvent sureties for tire like earn to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.(ii) The petitioner shall regularly attend ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »