Karnataka Court March 2012 Judgments

irappa Shivalingappa Pawadi Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the Advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.83 of 2010 of Kulagod Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 427, 336, 504, 109 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned Counsel for respondent. I have perused the FIR.3. Objection of learned SPP is filed in this case.4. The contents of the FIR found in the record discloses that Kulagod Police Station have registered the case in Crime No.83 of 2010 against the accused 1 to 19 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 427, 336, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC on the complaint of Shivalingappa Mahabavi. Its contents further discloses that accused belongs to Kuruba Community and the complainant belongs to Lingayath Commun...

M/S. S.M. Kannappa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore and Others Vs. Bhup ...

Court: Karnataka

1. These three original side appeals are directed against the common Judgment and Order dated 16thAugust, 2006, rendered by learned Company Judge, disposing of Company Petition No.98/90 and Company Application No.1127/02. By the impugned judgment the company petition, seeking rectification of register of members under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short ‘the Act’), has been allowed, where as the Company application, seeking impleadment in the Company Petition, has been rejected.2. The appellant-Sudharshan Kumar Manchanda (for short “Manchanda”) in Original Side Appeal No.46/2006 was respondent no.2 in Co. Petition No.98/1990, whereas the appellant-S.M. Kannappa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., (for short “the Company”) in Original side appeal No.51/06 was respondent no.1 in the said petition. The third appeal bearing OSA No.45/06 is filed by applicant-Prema Kumari (for short ’PK’) in Co. Application 1127/02.3. The first respondent ha...

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Bellary Do Vs. Mallikethi Basappa a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012ILR(Kar)2572; 2012(3)KCCR2385

(Prayer: THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF W.C. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT:05/02/2007 PASSED IN CASE NO.CWC:BLR/CR-17/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, BELLARY DIVISION, DAVANAGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,37,830/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A.) MANJUNATH J, 1. The appellant – Insurance Company is questioning the liability saddled on it by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bellary Division, Davanagere, in case No.CWC.BLR/CR-17/2006 dt.5.2.2007. 2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder: The respondents-1 to 7 are the legal heirs of one Shivarudrappa who dies in a road traffic accident occurred on 3.1.2005. According to the claimants, he was working under 8th respondent who is the owner of the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA.35/T-1025-26. According to them, the deceased while discharging his duties and during the course of his employment under the 8th respondent died in a road traffic accident. On 3.1.2...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Others Vs. Premakka and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. These two Appeals are directed against one and the same judgment and award dated 24.4.2006 made in MVC No. 3568/2004 on the file of Court of small Causes/Additional MACT at Bangalore City.2. In other words, appeal in MFA No. 10749/2006 has been filed by the Insurance Company praying that the impugned judgment and Award passed against the Insurance Company may be set aside. Appeal in MFA No. 10737/2006 has been filed by the claimants, viz., legal representatives of the deceased Murthappa alias Murthy, praying to award compensation as claimed in the claim petition in MVC No. 3568/2004 by modifying the impugned judgment and Award dated 24.04.2006.3. Since these two appeals are directed against one and the same judgment, we have heard common arguments and proceeding to dispose of these Appeals by this common judgment.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits:i) that the claimants are residents of Reddihalli village Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District and the moto...

Sripada Gouda Vs. State by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station, Dharwa ...

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

1. This appeal is by the accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence date 12-6-2006 passed by the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad in Special (SVC) C.C.No.13 of 1991 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,89,000/- for the aforesaid offence. 2. The appellant was appointed in Hubli Dharwad Municipality as a Surveyor on 1-7-1966. Later he was promoted as a Junior Engineer and ultimately retired from service on 30-3-1994. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, C.W.1-Y.V. Patil, Police Inspector, Lokayuktha Police Station, Dharwad, by 2-2-1989 received credible information that the appellant-accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income by means of corrupt activities. On 2-2-1989, C.W.1 obtained a sea...

John Foscol Lopis Vs. Hubli Electricity Supply Co., Ltd and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 27.5.2009 made by the petitioner, the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A and appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground to any suitable post in the 1st respondent Corporation and quash the order dated 5/12/2005 passed by the 2nd respondent the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure-B.) 1. Petitioner in this petition has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 27th May 2009 made by the petitioner, the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure A and appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground to any suitable post in the first respondent Corporation. Further, petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari, to quash the order dated 5th December 2005 bearing No.Honnavar:AEE: Samanya:05-06/328...

Kakaral Ravikumar, Koppa and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. b ...

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(Prayer: These Writ Appeals filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to call for records and set aside the order dated 17.03.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, in the Writ Petition No.19684/2007 and etc.,) 1. The appellants are all land owners who have lost their lands or in the process of losing and in fact they are fighting a losing battle to save their lands for livelihood or sustenance due to the compulsory take over of this land by the State Government by issue of notifications u/s 3 (1), (3) and 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short the Act). 2. Appellants/land owners effort to save their lands from the sweep of acquisition by the State Government by filing writ petitions before this Court having failed as the learned Single Judge of this Court opined that there is no merit in the contentions urged in support of the writ petitioners, challenge to the acquisition proceedings under the Act and more so, the number of writ petitioner...

Siddraju and Others Vs. Gangadhara and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. This second appeal is by the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff-Siddaiah challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Mandya in R.A. No. 89/2003 dated 23.6.2005.2. Suit was filed by plaintiff-Siddaiah for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as it was settled in his favour by one Chowdamma, D/o Karisidda of Bevinahalli village, executed on 3.8.1951 before the sub-Registrar, Mandya and defendants have no semblance of right or interest over the suit property. On the death of Chowdamma on 9.3.1990, by virtue of the Settlement Deed dated 3.8.1951, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since after the death of Chowdamma the defendants started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff, he filed a suit. The matter was contested by the defendants contend...

S. Krishna Murthy and Others Vs. M/S. Hoysala Building Development

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying to sanction the Scheme of Arrangement as per Annexure-C, so as to be binding on the respondent Company, all its creditors and shareholders and to pass such other and further orders as are just in the facts and circumstances of the case.)1. This petition under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) is filed seeking sanction of the scheme of arrangement (Annexure-C) in respect of M/s Hoysala Building Development Company (P) Ltd which is in liquidation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company in liquidation’). The petitioners herein are the creditors of the Company in liquidation.2. This Court by the order dated 13.06.2002 in Co.P.No.63/1991 at the instance of the creditors ordered the winding up and the Official Liquidator has been appointed in that regard. During the pendency of the further proceedings, the first p...

Abdul Naveed Vs. Dr. Masbah Najam

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner has filed M.C. No. 3 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and for certain other reliefs. The respondent has filed objections to the said petition. The parties have let in evidence and the matter is posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner has filed two applications. I.A. Nos. 13 and 14 under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Order 16, Rule 6 of the CPC respectively. In the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A. No. 13, the petitioner has stated that the father of the respondent and the respondent herself have given their statement before the police with regard to the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. R.W. 1 in her evidence has also admitted the same. The said document is necessary to establish his case. In the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A. No. 14, th...