Karnataka Court March 2012 Judgments
Maftuna Baba D. JanavA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
1. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No. 54/2012 registered by Halasur Police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maximum punishment for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act is three months or fine. He also submitted that, in case of the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act, the victim becomes the witness.3. Having regard to the same, I find that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner shall regularly attend the Court on hearing dates.(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses....
Tag this Judgment!V. Govindaraju. Son of Late G. Venkatesh. Vs. Smt. Uma (Babitha). Do. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
K.L.MANJUNATH; K GOVINDARAJULU, JJ.1. The unsuccessful husband has filed an appeal in MFA No.8574/2009 challenging the legality and correctness of the order and decree passed in MC No. 155/2001 passed by the Second Additional Family Court Judge, Bangalore dated 1st September 2009. MFA No.8575/2009 is filed by the appellant challenging the decree passed by the same Court in MC No.2345/2005 for restitution of conjugal rights.2. Since these two appeals arise out of a common order passed in both the MC petitions they are taken up today.3. According to the appellant he married the respondent on 26.02.1999 at Sharif B. Basappa Smt.Gangamma Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore. It is his case that since inception of the marriage it was not a happy marriage on account of quarrelsome nature of the wife and her family member. It is his case that she used to pick up quarrel on flimsy grounds that she used to leave the matrimonial home and used stay in her parents’ house. Out of the marriage they have...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Tulips Auto India Private Limited. Vs. the Registrar of Companies ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
1. The petitioner is before this Court against the order of the Registrar of Companies dated J 9.05.2010 whereby the petitioner-company has been ordered to be struck of from the register maintained by that, office and has thereafter Gazetted the same on 23.12.2010. The petitioner therefore seeks for an order to restore the name of the petitioner- company in the records of the Registrar of Companies.2. Though the respondent had been notified in the instant petition, objection has not been filed to the petition.3. The petitioner-company was incorporated on 09.11.2004 as per the certificate of incorporation as at Annexure-A to the petition. Though the petitioner is stated to have been carrying on its business activity eversince then there is no material produced before this Court to indicate that the returns have been filed annually before the Registrar of Companies as required under law. In that regard, though the Registrar of Companies is staled to have issued the notice, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Novell Software Development (India) Private Ltd. Vs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
1. Petitioner is the Transferee Company, which was incorporated on 10.05.1994. The Transferor Company was incorporated in the name of 'Onward Novell Software (India) Private Limited' on 29.09.1992 and thereafter the name was changed as 'Novell India Private Limited' on 11.10.2006. Tire Board of Directors of the Transferor and Transferee Company have resolved to adopt die scheme of arrangement as at Annexure-E to the petition in their respective Board meetings which were held on 30.03.2011 and 31.03.2011 respectively. Thereafter, the Transferee Company had approached this Court in CA No.562/2011 filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act praying that the meeting of two equity shareholders and 22 unsecured creditors be dispensed with. This Court by order dated 14.07.201 1 allowed the application. Pursuant thereto, the instant petition has been filed by the Transferee Company. Notice of the petition was ordered to the Registrar of Companies, which is represented by a counsel and the aff...
Tag this Judgment!Gurumallappa and Others Vs. Shivanagamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
(Prayer: This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2005 passed in RA No.5/2003 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Chamarajanagara, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2002 passed in O.S.No.119/1997 by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamarajanagar.)1. This second appeal is by defendants 2 to 4 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), and CJM, Chamarajanagar, in R.A.No.5/2003.2. Brief facts of the case are, plaintiffs 1 to 4 had filed a suit before the Addl. Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamarajanagar in O.S.No.119/1997 seeking for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant No.1 and other defendants. According to plaint averments, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are the wives of late Basappa. According to the plaintiffs, 1st defendant had no issues through her husband. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the 1st plaintiff and late...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Venkataswamy and Others Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
1. Sri. K.A. Ariga, learned AGA is directed to take notice for R1.2. The first respondent initiated action against second respondent under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, referred to as ‘Act’). The second respondent after the initiation of proceedings under Section 64 of the Act, surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore second respondent has raised a dispute before the first respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,39,26,119/-. Suffice it to note that the respondent 2 filed an application to implead the present petitioners on the ground that they had also availed loan from the Bank. Notice on the said application was issued and the said notice was subject-matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.14456 and 14457 of 1999 connected with W.P.Nos.16596 and 16597 of 1999. This Court declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same on 5-10-1999. The said order of the learned Singl...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Teggi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
DR. K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J.,1. These writ petitions are directed against common order dated 6-1-2012 dismissing all the applications in Nos.4962 to 5055 of 2010 and connected cases, on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (in short, ‘KAT’) at Bangalore.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petitions maybe stated as under:The petitioners are applicants before the KAT. The petitioners along with others had approached the KAT for the following reliefs:(i) to declare Note 4 of Clause A in Section I of Section Schedule to the Recruitment Rules providing the selection of candidates for the main examination in order of merit on the basis of performance in the preliminary examination as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and(ii) to direct the respondents to select the candidates for the main examination by adopting a methodology by which candidates including applicants choosing different optiona...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. B.R. Ramachandru and ors Vs. Sri. V. Venkanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.1. These appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment as the central issues that arise for consideration are the same. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.2. The appellants in the first of these appeals are the legal representatives No.4, 5 and 10, respectively, of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is, that the property described in the plaint schedule belong to one Smt. Akkayyamma and was in possession and enjoyment of N.G. Narayan, S/o. Govinda Chettiar. Who was the tenant in occupation of the suit property. An advance of Rs.200/- had been paid by the tenant to Smt. Akkayyamma towards rent and a rent-note was execute I under which such receipt of advance was acknowledged. Akkayyamma had died on 30lh June 1968 and the plaintiff is said to be the grand nephew of Akkayyamma’s husband Balappa. Balappa had pre-deceased Akka...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ranganath Son of Late KenchappA. Vs. the State by Lokayuktha Polic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
1. The petitioner is accused No.4. He is taking anticipatory ball in respect of Order No 66/3011 registered by Karnataka Lokayukte Police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sections 419, 420, 120-B, 169, 177, 409, 423 end 464 of IPC.2. The allegation in the complaint is that, the accused No.1 and 2 acquired properties disproportionate to their unknown sources and some of the properties which were purchased under registered sale deed, this petitioner as a Tashildar has muted the name of the purchasers in the revenue record.3. It is not a case of the police that this petitioner has acquired any property or mis-appropriated or has done anything in contravention of provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is also not a case of the police that there is no registered sale deed. It is based on the registered sale deed, the petitioner has made the entry of the name of the purchaser of the property, but he is also arraigne...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Muniyamma Wife of Late Mallappa and ors. Vs. Sri Venkataswamy Son ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
1. Appellants who are the plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.603/2012 seeking for declaration declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule 'A' property and also declare that two sale deeds dated 6-8-2002 executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are null and void and also sought for declaration, declaring that the GPA elated 20-4-1989 executed by Mallappa in favour of the first defendant is null and void. Further, the plaintiffs have filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up construction and also alienating the suit schedule property.2. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that the suit has been filed on 18-1-2012. the case had come up before the court on 20-1-2012. On that day, the court had issued notice to the respondents. Thereafter, the matter was posted on various dates, after the appearance of the defendants the matter was adjourned for one r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »