Karnataka Court March 2012 Judgments
Shivaraja Alias Shivui Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
1. As these two petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are arising out same Crime No.6 of 2012 of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore City, they have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1652 of 2012 has been arrayed as accused 1 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.1310 of 2012 have been arrayed as accused 3 and 4 in Crime No.6 of 2012 of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore City, registered for the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. These petitioners along with other accused alleged to have made preparations for committing dacoity and robbery near Siddapura Kalyani, situated in 1st Block, Jayanagara, Bangalore. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 8 p.m. on 9-1-2012, the Police Inspector of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore, received a credible information about five persons standing near Siddapura Kalyani in...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Patil
Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
Ramanna, President: This appeal is filed by the OP to set aside the order passed by the DF, Gulbarga on 22.3.2010 in complaint No.159/09 whereby complaint filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed directing this appellant / OP to pay Rs.1,15,917/- by way of damages caused to the vehicle in the accident together with interest at 9% per annum from 10.3.2009 and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the respondent towards compensation for mental agony and hardship and also to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Assailing the same, the OP has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 129 days supported by an affidavit of Chandrashekar M Hosamani, Deputy Manager (Claims) explaining the reasons for the delay. The appellant also filed IA-3 for production of additional documents. 3. After service of notice the respondent neither appeared through counsel nor in...
Tag this Judgment!Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Micro Gate a Sole Proprietorship Concern Having Its Office. Vs. Arcain ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
1. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act. seeking winding up of the respondent company.2. The respondent though served and represented have not filed their objection statement.3. This Court by its order dated 08.12.2010. on finding prima facie case to admit the petition, has admitted the same and ordered advertisement of the petition. Accordingly, the advertisement has also been carried out. There is no other person who is either supporting or -opposing the petition. In that view, the petition is listed for final hearing.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. As already noticed, at the first instance itself, the respondent had not filed any objection statement disputing the claim put forth in the instant petition. Even subsequent to the admission, the respondent has not placed any material on record to indicate that there is a dispute between the parties with re...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Mavid Pasha, Son of Kaiser Pasha and ors. Vs. State by Devaraja P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
1. The petitioners 1 to 6 who have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 7 in Crime No. 17/2012 of Devaraja Police Station, Mysore City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, have sought for an order to enlarge them on ball.2. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 02:45 p.m. on 01.02.2012, when the Police Sub-Inspector of Devaraja Police Station was on patrolling duty within the jurisdiction of the Police Station, received credible information that 6 to 7 persons holding weapons were planning to commit some offence. Immediately, the Police Sub-Inspector secured the presence of Panchas apprised them about the information and along with those Panchas and staff went near Eastern Gate of Town Hall in Mysore City. There the Police Sub-Inspector saw these persons along with another accused armed with weapons like longs, clubs iron rods etc., and on seeing the Police party, those persons tried to run away. However, they were surrou...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Irfan Son of MoidIn and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
1. In all these 3 petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. since the petitioners are seeking the relief of bail in connection with case in Crime No.242/1 1 of Manipal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 2043 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short " the NDPS Act"), they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in Crl.P.Nos. 1223 and 1224 of 2012 is one and the same. He has been arrayed as accused No.2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No. 1627/2012 has been arrayed as accused No. 1. These petitioners along with others are accused of having possessed brown sugar weighing about 1 kg. valued at Rs. 1.65.00,000/-.3. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 8.15 p.m. on 4.11.2011, P.M.Diwakar. Police Sub Inspector of Coastal Police Station, Malpe received a credible information about few persons selling and buying brown sugar near Paradise Resort situated close to Malpe Beac...
Tag this Judgment!Sri N R Krishnaiah Son of Sri Ramage GowdA. Vs. Sri. R Gopalan Secreta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
1. The complainant in this contempt petition was the writ petitioner before this court in writ petition No. 12105/2001 praying for quashing of a decision passed by the Chairman & Managing Director, National Insurance Company Limited, declining to accede to the request of the complainant to count past service rendered by the complainant in the Government Insurance Department, which was later come to be absorbed in the National Insurance Company Limited.2. Writ petition came to be allowed, but in the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, it came to be slightly modified taking notice of certain amendment to the law and therefore a direction was issued to the respondents to independently consider the representation of the complainant - writ petitioner for extending or otherwise of the benefit that is sought for.3. Complainant had approached this court with the above contempt petition complaining that notwithstanding the clear direction, the rep...
Tag this Judgment!Ms Sunsu Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.R. Patel and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
1. The instant application is Bled by the Official Liquidator alleging that the erstwhile Directors of the respondent company have not filed the Statement of Affairs as contemplated in law and as such, action is liable to be initiated as contemplated under Section 454(5) and (5A) of the Companies Act.2. The respondents have appeared and put forth their explanation by way of defence to contend that they have not committed the offence as alleged. It is their case that even though the dates indicate, that there is delay, the same was for reasonable cause and if such cause is accepted by this Court, they are entitled to be exonerated. In view of the allegation, the charge had been framed against the respondents. The respondents denied the charge and sought to be tried. Accordingly, it was set down for evidence. The witness on behalf of the Official Liquidator was examined as PW. 1 and the respondents were examined as RW. 1 and RW.2 respectively. On behalf of the applicant, the documents at...
Tag this Judgment!M.V.Anil Kumar, Son of Venkatesh Vs. State by Saligrama Police, K.R.Na ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
1. A girl by name Kushi aged about 71/2 years, daughter of M.S. Manjunath, resident of Mirle Village in K.R. Nagar Taluk of Mysore District, was found missing from her house from 30.04.2011. On 01.05.2011. her father Sri. M.S. Manjunath filed a report to that effect in Saligrama Police Station expressing his suspicion on one Sachin and Ramu. On the basis of the said report, case in Crime No.55/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC came to be registered. However, the police were not able to trace the missing girl. On i8.08.2011, Smt. Reena, mother of the missing girl lodged another report, wherein she expressed suspicion towards three persons including this petitioner. She expressed her apprehension that her daughter has been kidnapped by those persons. Thereafter, on 13.10.2011, on suspicion this petitioner was apprehended and thereafter, he said to have made voluntary statement confessing that, on 30.04.2011 while the girl Kushi was playing in front of the house in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Sanath Kumar. Son of RamachandrappA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
1. In this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who has been arrayed as accused No. 1 in Crime No. 105/2011 of Thymagondlu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 498-A, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest by the respondent - police in connection with the aforesaid case.2. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant Smt.Indira. According to the case of the prosecution, the complainant lodged report at about 4 30 p.m. on 22.12.2011 about an incident of assault on her said to have occurred at about 3.00 a.m. on 18.12.2011 in her matrimonial home. According to the allegations made in the complaint, her husband, parents-in-law and other relatives of her husband subjected her to cruelty and harassment by coercing her to bring further dowry of Rs.3 lakhs and also on account of the fact that she had delivered a female child and at about 3.00 a.m. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »