Karnataka Court March 2012 Judgments

Smt. Laskhmi, Wife of Raju. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.22/2012 of Thalakadu Police Station of T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District, She along with two other accused persons alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.2. According to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Shivaratnamma, wife of S. Veeranna, lodged a report at about 12:30 p.m. oh 04.02.2012, alleging that on 03.01.2012 at about 12:00 noon while she was in Mudukuthore jathra attending the car festival of Mallikarjunaswamy. Someone snatched away her gold mangalasutra chain weighing about 39 grams and when she looked back, she noticed three ladies moving very fast and she had seen their faces.3. According to the case of the prosecution, on 04.02.2012 itself, this petitioner along with two other accused persons were apprehended on suspicion near Dandinamarammana temple of Byrapura and on interrogation they disclosed their names and identity and they said to have disclosed tha...

Dyavaiah, Son of Channaiah. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner along with few other accused persons alleged to have committed offence of assault on his father and brother at about 08:30 p.m. on 12.10.2011 in Doddagavanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli. Arakalagudu Taluk, in the background of the family disputes. On the basis of the complaint lodged by D.C.Devaraju, brother of the petitioner herein, case in Crime No.312/2011 came to be registered initially for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(B) and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. It appears that after the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences and also the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 149 oi the Indian Penal Code. On tiling of the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences, the petitioner herein presented the petition seeking relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest, before the learned Sessions Judge. However, the said petition came ...

Latha Doughter of Sundareshwaran Vs. C. Kailash, Son of B.S.Chandrashe ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal by the appellant is arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 12/10/2009 passed in M.O.No. 247/2005 by the Judge. Family Court, Mysore.2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Smt. P.C. Vinitha, appearing along with Sri T.A. Kurumbaiah, submits that, the main matter before the Family Court itself has been disposed of and therefore, the prayer sought in this appeal does not survive for consideration. Therefore, she submitted that this appeal may be disposed of as having become Infructuous and she has also filed a memo dated 28th March 2012 to that effect.3. Placing the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and the statements made in the memo on record, this appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. Ordered accordingly....

M/S Prime Industries, Bangalore, Rep. by Its Partner Manish Agarwal Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Company Application is filed by the counsel for the applicant under Rules 6 and 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 read with order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, praying to restrain the 2nd respondent from selling the assets of the Company in liquidation by way of private negotiation and direct the 2ndrespondent to call for tenders for sale of assets of the company in liquidation and follow a transparent process.)1. The applicant, who is one of the unsecured creditors of M/s B.S. Refrigerators Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as to the ‘Company in liquidation’) had instituted the petition in Co.P.No.185/2002) seeking winding up. The said petition along with the connected petitions were considered by this Court and by the order dated 18.08.2010 allowed the petitions and ordered the winding up of the Company in liquidation.2. The second respondent which is the Asset Reconstruction Company under assignment agreement from the secured creditors viz., State Bank of Mysore, ...

Mohammed Irfan Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

1. In all these 3 petitions filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 since the petitioners are seeking the relief of bail in connection with case in Crime No.242 of 2011 of Manipal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 8 and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and 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 Cri.P.Nos.1223 and 1224 of 2012 is one and the same. He has been arrayed as accused 2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.1627 of 2012 has been arrayed as accused 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 ...

Ligakath Ali Khan Vs. Syed Wazeed and Others

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: is filed under S.100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 4.11.2008 passed in R.A.No.155/2006 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Bangalore rural district, Bangalore, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12.9.2006 passed in O.S.No.257/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal.)1. This second appeal filed under S.100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), arise from a Judgment and decree passed by the District Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, whereby, the learned Pri. District Judge, allowed the appeal filed by the 1st respondent herein, under S.96 of the Code and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Anekal and decreed the suit for partition and separate possession.2. Basic facts of the case are, Sri Syed Wazeed, the 1st respondent in this appeal, filed O.S.No.340/1999, renumbered as 257/2006, in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Anekal, to p...

K.R. Krishnegowda and Another Vs. the Chief Manager/Authorised Officer ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-F, DATED 6.9.2011 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI IN R.A. (S.A.) 97/2010.)NAGARATHNA, J.1. This writ petition raises the issue of the requisite procedure to be followed prior to taking possession of a secured asset under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act”, for the sake of brevity).2. The petitioners are debtors, who have filed this writ petition, being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (DRAT) in R.A.(S.A.)/97/2010, as well as the order dated 27.12.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, in respect of property belonging to the second petitioner, which is situated at B.S.K. III Stage, Bangalore, invoking the provisions of Sections 13(4) and ...

icici Pru Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Manager Legal Sreedar, ...

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

Ramanna, President This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the CP Act 1986 by the appellant / Opposite Party against the order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the DF, Chickmagalore in Complaint No. 203/2010 whereby his complaint filed by the respondent came to be allowed directing this appellant/Opposite Party to pay assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which 9% interest shall be paid on the said amount till its realization. Assailing the same it 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 10 days caused in preferring this appeal supported by an affidavit of its officer by name Sreedhar, working as a Customer Service Associate of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., explaining the reasons for the delay in preferring this appeal. 3. The ...

The Mangement of Mohan Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Petitioner is seeking for writ of mandamus to Respondents No. 1 & 2 to open office premises of the petitioner-company at Virgo Nagar, Bangalore-49.2. Respondent No. 4 was retrenched from service on 05.12.1998 and Labour Court passed an award on 19.03.2010 in reference No.26/2005 granting the relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits in favour of Respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 has issued a recovery certificate under Section 33(C)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act to Respondent No.1 on 10.06.2010 Annexure-A to recover a sum of 2,53,693/- from petitioner-company as arrears of land revenue. When the said recovery certificate was sought to be enforced against the petitioner a cheque was issued by petitioner in favour of Respondent No.1 for 2,53,693/- and thereafter petitioner addressed a letter on 24.08.2011 requesting Authorities not to present the said cheque since the bank had seized the amount. Thereafter Respondent No.2 has issued a distraint warrant dated 17.01.2010...

Oscar P. Mascarenhas Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Autho ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(2)KCCR1274

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J 1. Brig L.A.P. Kamath @ Brig. L.A.P. Sequeria was allotted Site No. 342 situated at Koramangala 1 st stage (1st Block), Koramangala extension, Bangalore-34 measuring 5328 sq.ft. The description of the site in favour of Brig. Kamath @ Sequeira is found in the schedule attached to the writ petition. A sale deed dated 30th May 1973 came to be executed in favour of Kamath pertaining to the aforementioned site as per Annexure –M. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the aforementioned site from Brig. Kamath Sequeria through registered sale deed Annexure-D dated 14.8.1984. Since then, the petitioner is in possession of the property and the revenue records are changed in his favour. Despite such settled position, first respondent allotted the very site in favour of 2nd respondent herein and executed sale deed also in his favour on 11.4.2011. It is needless to observe that the petitioner did not know about such transaction between the BDA and respondent No.2. I...