Karnataka Court April 2012 Judgments
T. Muniyappa Vs. H. Eshwarasa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
1. This is a defendant’s appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting decree of specific performance in respect of the agreement dated 30-10-1985.2. For the sake of convenience the parties in this appeal would be referred to by their rankings as they are arrayed in the suit before the Court below:3. The brief facts of the case are as follows.—The suit schedule property is a vacant site bearing No.40 formed in S.Nos.74 and 75/5 of Laggere Grama, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, morefully described in the schedule appended to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Schedule Property’ for short).3.1 The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 30-10-1985 and sought for a direction to the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of him conveying the suit schedule property as per the terms of the agreement dated 30-10-1985 together with all right...
Tag this Judgment!R. Jagadeesh Vs. State by Badanavalu Police Station, Mysore District
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
1. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.56 of 2012 of Badanavalu Police Station, Mysore District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 503 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, has sought for grant of anticipatory bail.2. It is the case of the prosecution that this petitioner, along with other accused in this case, who are arrayed as accused 2 to 6, were subjecting the daughter of the complainant to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand of dowry and they had also driven her out of the house stating that she would not be admitted to the house unless she meets their demand.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all other accused in this case who are arrayed as accused 2 to 6 have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge and having regard to the allegations made against this petitioner and overact attributed to him he be g...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Sarisha and anr. Vs. Sakhi Enterprises Partnership Firm.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-22-2012
A S BOPANNA, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 7160/201 1 has filed the suit against the defendants therein seeking for perpetual injunction against the imitation of the plaintiffs artistic works. The plaintiff has also sought for mandatory injunction, interim damages and for rendering accounts of profits earned by such imitation. The plaintiff had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit in IA No.1. The defendants have appeared and disputed the claim of the plaintiff. The Court below after considering the rival contentions on the interlocutory application, has by its order dated 15.12.2011 allowed the application and restrained the defendants. The defendants are therefore before this Court, in this appeal.2. The parties would be referred as per the rank assigned to them before the Court below for the purpose of convenience and clarity.3. Heard Sri Aravind Kamath, learned counsel for the defendants and Ms. Ja...
Tag this Judgment!T.R .Parameshaiah. Son of Late RachappA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. The petitioner was working as a Manager of Heerikati Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society till 04.09.2007, on which day he retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation. The accounts of this Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008¬09, 2009-10, were stated to have been audited by the auditors attached to Co-operative Department, in the year 2011. The report submitted by the Auditor said to have revealed that during the year 2006-07 while this petitioner was discharging duty as the Manager has misappropriated funds to an extent of Rs5,15,166.00 and during the financial year 2007-08 a sum of Rs. 1,78,515= 15. Thus, in all Rs.6.93.681.15 was found misappropriated by this petitioner On receipt of the audited report, the Chief Executive Officer of the Society filed complaint on 20.01.2012 before the Jurisdictional Police alleging misappropriation of the aforesaid amount by this petitioner and for init...
Tag this Judgment!Sri R. Jakhankar, Son of A.R.Rajamani. Vs. State by Kamakshipalya Poli ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. Apprehending his arrest by the Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bangalore in connection with the case in Crime No. 149/2012, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has sought for relief of anticipatory bail.2. According to the prosecution, on the task of the complaint lodged by one Ravi D. son of late Doddaiah on 06.03.2012, the aforesaid case came to be registered and investigation was taken up. The sum and substance of allegations made in the complaint are, he is a close relative of the deceased Padma, who had been married to one Nagaraju about 26 year's ago and from out of the said wedlock she had given birth to a son named. Anand, who is presently aged about 25 years; that on account of certain differences, the deceased left her husband Nagaraju about 10 years also but there was no legal divorce and thereafter, she started residing with the petitioner herein, in flat No.258 of Krishna Apartment. Simmon Colony. Kamakshipalya ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Dodda Thammaiah., Son of Sri ErannA. and ors. Vs. the State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. The petitioners who have been arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 6, in Crime No. 16/2012 of Chandrashekharapura Police Station, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, apprehending their arrest by the respondent - Police in connection with the said case, have presented this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of anticipatory.2. According to the prosecution, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one S.N.Boregowda, Section Officer. B.E .S.C.O.M. Chandrashekharapura. at about 10:30 p.m. on 18.03.2012, the aforesaid case came to be registered and the investigation as token, up The allegations made in the complaint are that on 18.03,2012 at about 05:30 pm. When complainant along with other staffs of B.E.S.C.O.M, went near 100 KVA transformer in front of K.G.Temple. Primary School, to under take some repair work there, noticed some devise fixed to draw unauthorised electricity and when they were attempting to remove the same, these petitioners and others being r...
Tag this Judgment!instrumentation Ltd. Vs. Abb Limited.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. This petition having been heard and reserved for order on 16 04.2012, coming on for pronouncement this day the court made the following Petitioner No. 1 - M/s. Instrumentation Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act. 1956 having its registered office at Jhalawar Road, Kota - 324 005, Rajasthan, is arrayed as accused No. 1. Petitioners 2 to 7 are arrayed as accused 2, 5, 6 to 9 in C C.No 26582/2011. pending trial for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act'). They have sought for quashing the proceedings.2. I have heard the learned counsel for parties.3. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that, there are no averments in the complaint to invoke section 141 of the Act. Petitioners 6 & 7 are contractual Directors, petitioners 2 to 5 are nominated Directors. The dispute between petitioner No. 1 and the respondent has to be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration in terms of the purchase orders placed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Ponnachana K. Somaiah, Son of Late KushalappA. Vs. the State of K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. In this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C, the petitioner arraigned as accused No. 1 in S.C.No.42/11 pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, has sought for his release on bail. This petitioner along with two other accused persons has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.2. One Ponnachhan K. Nachchappa, elder brother of this petitioner and also accused No.2 is the deceased in this case. According to the case of the prosecution, during the night of 25.10.2010, CW. 1 P.P.Ramesh resident of Kaggodlu village. Madikeri District while was in his house, heard sounds of gun firing from the coffee plantation of the deceased and he also heard some human cries. However, since it was pitch dark, he did not go in the direction of the sound. On the next day morning viz., on 26.10.2010 at about 8.30 a.m. he informed the Rural Police, Madiker...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Purvankara Projects Limited, and ors. Vs. the Urban Development Dep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
B.S. PATIL, J.1. In these batch of writ petitions, petitioners are allenging the notification dated 03.02.2010 issued by the Government through Department of Urban Development, thereby framing rules providing for imposition and recovery of improvement charges. The said rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 466(b) read with Section 421 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, the Act'). These Rules are known as Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Recovery of Improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009, (for short, 'the Rules'). The Rules are published in the official gazette on 05.02.2010. They have come into force with effect from 17.01.2007. Pursuant to the Rules framed, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, `BBMP') has issued a Circular dated 07.02.2011 declaring the improvement expenses to be collected in respect of different properties coming within the jurisdiction of the BBMP by notifying the rate at which such improvement expenses shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Purvankara Projects Limited, Bangalore Vs. the Urban Development Depar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. In these batch of writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the notification dated 3-2-2010 issued by the State Government through Department of Urban Development, thereby framing rules providing for imposition and recovery of improvement charges. The said rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 466(b) read with Section 421 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’). These rules are known as Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Recovery of Improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The Rules are published in the Official Gazette on 5-2-2010. They have come into force with effect from 17-1-2007. Pursuant to the Rules framed, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, ‘BBMP’) has issued a Circular dated 7-2-2011 declaring the improvement expenses to be collected in respect of different properties coming within the jurisdiction of the BBMP by notifying the rate at which such...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »