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.
Official Liquidator of Ms. Gaeasoft Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ravishankar K Son of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
A.S. BOPANNA, J.1. The instant application is filed under Section 454 (5) and (5A) of the Companies Act, 1956 R/w Rule 132 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying this Court to take cognizance of the offence committed by the accused in not complying with the requirement of the provisions of Section 454 of the Companies Act and to try them for the said offence in accordance with law.2. Respondent No.3 has already been discharged by an earlier order of this Court. Respondent No.4 on filing his objection statement has contended that he had resigned as a Director of the company in liquidation as far back as in the year April 2001 and as such, as on the date of winding up i.e., 07.11.2005, he was not a Director of the company. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 have pleaded not guilty of the offences and have also indicated reasons to justify reasonable cause for not being able to comply with the requirement within the time prescribed. It is also indicated that the statement of affairs has be...
Sri Kempaiah Ips Son of Sri Kuleeraiah and ors. Vs. the State of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. The petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.2553/2007 registered on the basis of P.C.No.18/1989 pending trial for offences punishable under Sections 144, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, r/w. 149 IPC.2. I have heard Sri Dinesh, learned Counsel for petitioners. Sri Sarat Chandra Bnai. learned Counsel for second respondent and the learned Government Pleader for first respondent. I have been taken through the complaint, sworn statement and the impugned order.3. The petition is filed to quash the proceedings. Therefore, averments of complaint and sworn statement will have to be accepted at their face value. The Learned Magistrate on proper analysis of the averments of complaint and sworn Biatcmnt has taken cognizance and issued process to petitioners for the aforestated offences,4. The learned Counsel the petitioners has made the following submission:i) The offences are alleged to have been complied at about 230 a.m., on 18.2.1988. Therefore, cognizance taken on 7.5.2007 ...
Sri,guru Son Ofchandrashekar Vs. Stale by H.D.Kote Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. The petitioner No.2 in CrLP.No.50/2012 is accused No.2 in Crime No.370/ 2011 and he is seeking anticipator bail. Petitioner in CrLP.No.795/2012 is accused No.1 in Crime No.370/2011. He has also sought for anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.50/2012 but now, he is apprehended and arrested and he is seeking enlargement on bail in Crl.P.No.795/2012. Hence, CrlP.No.50/2012 in so far as petitioner No.1 is dismissed.2. Though initially, cage was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, however, on investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC.3. The victim is one Ramya. Charge sheet material reveals that the deceased was married and having children, however, she had developed illicit relationship with accused No.1 On 31.10,2011 at about 6 a.m., accused No.2 the maternal uncle of accused No 1 saw accused No.1 going to the house of deceased. Since he had suspected that they had illicit relationship, he went and s...
Smt. H.V. Saritha Do. A.V. Venkataramana Gouda and ors. Vs. the State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have filed this petition seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 709/2009 pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nfi petitioner Rajesh Kumar filed M.C. No.2740/2010 against his wife 1M petitioner Smt. H. V. Saritha for dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of the said petition before the Principal Judge. Family Court, Bangalore, the parties effected compromise and in the said compromise the 2nd petitioner agreed to pay 2,50,000/- towards full and final settlement. Accordingly, an amount of 1,00,000/- paid to 1M petitioner Smt. H.V. Saritha and the balance amount of 1,50,000/- is paid today in the Court by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 324305 dated 01.03.2012 drawn on State Bank of Mysore.3. Both the parses agreed for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 709/2009 pending on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore ...
Somshekar Son of Late Karishnappa Vs. State by Thalaghattapura Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. The petitioner are accused in Crime No.109/2012 registered by Thalaghattapura police, Ramanagara for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 379, 504, 506 r/w 49 of IPC.2. In the complaint, the complainant has made allegation against the entire family- of the accused that they came and committed theft in his shop. It appears that there is a dispute as regard to the possession amt allegation is that these accused went and opened the shop and took away all the material to evict the person in possession. However, in the process, entire family had been included in the crime.3. Learned counsel appearing tar the petitioners submitted that the persons who were not in the village have also been included in the crime.4. Considering the same, though the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail, however, if the petitioners surrender find seek regular bail, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the same on the same day of tiling such an application. Accordingly, pe...
Gandhi Dhruv Kumar Son of Gandhi Manual, and anr Vs. the State of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. Learned Counsel for parties.2. The trial Court has accepted the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor to recall PW-6 for further examination to mark P.U.C marks card of accused which are alleged to have been forged by petitioner (accused). The main allegation against accused is that they have forged the P.U.C marks card for getting admitted to an Institution for higher education. Therefore, marking of P.U.C marks case is necessary for the just decision of the case.2. The teamed Counsel for petitioners strongly opposes the application only on the ground that application was filed at a belated stage.3. The lapse on the part of prosecution should not prevent the Court from receiving documents for just decision of the case.4, The learned Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the decisions reported in ELR 1996 Kar 553 (in the case of Sujatha Vs. Indian Bank}, 1LR 2004 Kar 2215 (in the case of Rabiya hi Kassim Vs. Country Wide Consumer Financial Services), AIR 1964 SC 993 (...
Nirmala Wife of Late Mahadevappa and ors. Vs. Ms Mysore Acetate and Ch ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. The applicants claim to be the legal representatives of late Mahadevappa, who was an ex-employee of the company in liquidation which was ordered to be wound up on 7th November 2003 in Company Petition No.45 of 2001. In respect of the claims dividend payable by the company in liquidation, to said late Mehadevappa has already lodged claim with the Official Liquidator. In the meanwhile, he died on 1S& October 2007 and the applicants being the legal representatives are seeking disbursement of the said amount in their favour when it is due for disbursement. The death certificate and the heir-ship certificate are produced along with the application.2, Application is a lb wed. The Official Liquidator shall now consider the claim of the applicants for the purpose of disbursement of the amount due and payable on account of late Mahadevappa.3. Accordingly CA No.326 of 2012 is allowed....
Sri Vikastaneja Son of Rajkumar TanejA. Vs. State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime Ho.4/3012 registered by Kadugodi police, Bangalore city for the offence punishable under Sections 496(A) read with 34 of IPC further read with section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition act, 1961.2. Complainant in the wife of the petitioner. It appears that there is already a dispute between the plaintiff and this accused Matter had gone to the Mediation for settlement in CrLMiBC.No.24/2010. Before the Mediation, it appear that there was some settlement. Though settlement was arrived, but later on it has been withdrawn and again referred to Mediation. At this stage, complaint has been filed.3. Considering the dispute between the parties being existed from 2010 and the complaint being filed subsequently, I find that the petitioner could also be granted anticipatory bail as the other accused have already been granted anticipatory bail.4. Accordingly, petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner by Kadugodi Police, Bangalore city in ...
Areyanda Charm an a at Sabu, Son of Late DevaihA. Vs. the State of Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1) The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.28/2012 of Rural Police Station. Madikeri. registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 & 20(a)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act.2) According to the case of the prosecution, this petitioner had grown Ganja plants in between the coffee plants in his land and on receiving credible information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madikeri Sub-Division, Madikeri, conducted raid on the land on 16.02.2012 and found 32 to 40 Ganja plants grown in the land in between the coffee plants. The Ganja plants grown upto the height of about. 11/2 to 2 feet, were cut and removed, and seized. On the basis of the report of the Dy.S.P., Case came to be registered for the aforesaid offences and investigation has been taken.-up. During investigation, the petitioner was apprehended and subjected to judicial custody. His application filed for bail came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.3) The petition...
Mona Ittina Vs. M/S. Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. Koramangala, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. Petitioner has sought for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.20/2010 in E.P.No.35/2010 arising out of complaint 354/2009 on the file of the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore initiated under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act on the ground that the petitioner being the Director is not liable for prosecution in respect of the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum and State forum.2. The brief facts of the case are:Respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed complaint before the District Forum against the Company called M/s, Ittina properties Pvt. Ltd., represented by Maheshwarappa, Director of the said company, alleging that deficiency in service and it is further contended that they have received advance amount promising to sell the flats has either delivered the flats nor returned the money paid by the respondents. After the enquiry, the District forum directed the company to complete the project and hand over the flats. However, the said order came to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »