Karnataka Court April 2012 Judgments

Mary George Dead by Children Paul George Brahma Kulam and Another Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayers: THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF KR ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 15.4.2004, PASSED IN HRC.NO.560/1999, ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 21 (1) (h) (j) OF KRC ACT (UNDER SECTION 27 (2) (r) OF KRC ACT) AND ALLOWING THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE KR ACT FOR EVICTION.THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF KR ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.4.2004, PASSED IN HRC. NO.564/1999. ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 21 (1) (h) (j) OF KRC ACT (UNDR SECTION 27 (2) (r) OF KR ACT) AND ALLOWING THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE KR ACT FOR EVICTION.)1. These revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Court below ordering the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter called as ‘the New Act’).2. The parties w...

T.V. Hanumantharayappa (Dead) by L.Rs Vs. Kempamma and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal, listed for admission after notice to the respondents who, though served are absent and unrepresented, is finally heard and disposed of by this order.2. The unsuccessful legal representatives of the deceased defendants in O.S. No.283 of 1994 having suffered a judgment and decree dated 27-2-2002 of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Tumkur, allowing the suit and directing them to deliver vacant possession of the suit Schedule ‘B’ item property to the plaintiff declared to be its absolute owner and not to interfere with the possession of said property, filed R.A.No.162 of 2008 before the I Additional District Judge, Tumkur, together with I.A.No.1 of 2006 to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which when allowed by judgment and decree dated 25-11-2010, the plaintiffs have presented this second appeal.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, perused the pleadings and examined the judgment and decree as well as the records...

Ajith Balse Vs. Capt. Ranga Karkere

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2214; 2012(2)MWN(Cr)DCC133

(Prayer: This Crl. R.P. is filed u/Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr. P.C. praying to set aside the Judgment/Order dt. 7.3.2008 passed by S.J., Udupi District, Udupi, in Crl. A. No. 52/07 and set aside the conviction Order dated 22.03.07 in C.C. No. 4700/07 passed by the I Addl, C.J. [Jr. Dn. ] and JMFC., Udupi District, Udupi and acquit the petitioner.)1. The revisionist has challenged the concurrent findings of his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short].2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision in brief are as under.The petitioner herein is the accused, whereas the respondent is the complainant before the trial Court. The accused-Ajith Balse is said to be the Managing Director of Tim Tim Far East Export Trading Company Private Limited, Patalganga, Raigad District, Maharastra, whereas the complainant is the Managing Partner of a concern by name Yermal Fish Tr...

Dr. M.D. Sampath and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. In these writ petitions, common questions arise for consideration. Hence, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the notification dated 23.02.2011 issued by the Government of Karnataka, whereby the nomination of the petitioners as Members of the Managing Committee of the Academy of Sanskrit Research, Melkote, has been withdrawn and respondents 3 to 5 are nominated as Members of the Committee. A corrigendum is issued on 03.03.2011 vide Annexure-B to correct the notification Annexure-A. So as to substitute the expression “Founder members of the Academy of Sanskrit Research. Melkote under Rule 7b” for the words appearing as “Members to the Managing Committee of the Academy of Sanskrit Research. Melkote under Rule 6”. Hence, the petitioners have also challenged the said corrigendum also.3. The Academy of Sanskrit Research respondent No.2 herein is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies...

The Dy. Commissioner and Another Vs. Gidda and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012ILR(Kar)2275

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash vide Anx. A1 dated 25.11.1993. Anx. 92 dated 30.09.93. Anx.A3 dated 28.10.93. Anx. A4 dated 14.09.93. Anx. A5 dated 17.02.94. Anx.A6 Dated 25.11.93 and Anx.97 dated 19.07.89 passed by R4 and R5 and direct the R1 to hold an enquiry into the matter and take such other action in accordance with law.)1. The writ petition in W.P.No.9573/1999 is filed by the petitioners claiming to be residents of Balehole, Chickmangalur District. The grant made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 viz., the Land Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Authority respectively in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 18 under the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the KRCIA Act’ for short] is called in question.2. The petitioners contend that the lands in question which were claimed by respondent Nos.7 to 18 as occupants for the purpose of grant ...

Shivaram and Another Vs. Hanumanth and Others

Court: Karnataka Dharwad

(Prayers: This RFA is filed u/s 100 of CPC praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 16/01/2009 passed in O.S.No.63/2005 on the file of the III addl. Civil Judge (SR.DN). Belgaum, and etc. This RFA.CROB is filed u/o.41 Rule 22 of CPC., praying to modify the Judgment and decree dated 16-01-2009 passed in O.S.No.63/2005 on the file of the III addl. Civil Judge (SR.DN) Belgaum, in so far as findings on issue No.2 and addl.issue No.1 and dismiss the suit, and etc.) 1. R.F.A.No.3014/2009 and R.F.A.Cr.Ob.No.101/2010 are by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 respectively in O.S.No.63/2005. R.S.A.No.5148/2009 is by the defendant in O.S.No.178/2010. 2. R.F.As. and Cross-Objections are dealt together, R.S.A. is dealt separately. 3. I.A.I is filed by defendant No.1 under Section 151 of CPC for deletion of names of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the R.F.A., as defendant No.1 is the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Opposing the deletion of the names of the respondent Nos.2 to...

G. Maruthi Vs. Met Life India Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., (Met Life), ...

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

K. Ramanna, President 1. This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the unsuccessful complainant to set aside the order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the III Addl., DF, Bangalore Complaint No.866/2011 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant came to be dismissed. Therefore, he 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 96 days caused in preferring this appeal supported by his affidavit explaining the delay. 3. In this appeal, we have heard the arguments of the LC for the appellants on admission and perused the records. 4. The point that arises for our consideration is: 1. Whether the appellant has shown sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay of 96 days caused in preferring this appeal? 2. Whether there is any prima-facie case to entertain this appeal and to issue notice to respondent? 3. If so, what order? 5. Point No.1 and 2:- A...

V. Satish Kumar, Son of VenkateshappA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.

Court: Karnataka

1. The. petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No. 14/2012 of Mahadevapura Police Station, Bangalore, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for an order to enlarge him on bail.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Maniunatha, the complainant - Ravindra Naik, accused No.1 - Arun Kumar were employees in Sky Lark Company and all of them were engaged in construction work. During night of 11.01.2012 at about 10:00 p.m. while all of them were working., accused No.1 picked up quarrel with deceased Manjunatha. Thereafter, accused No.1 secured the presence of his bother accused No .2, who came there on his motor cycle and handed over a dragger to accused No. 1 and thereafter, accused No.1 STABBED Manjunatha on his stomach at about 10:45 p.m., and thereby caused mm severe injuries to which Manjunatha succumbed and thereafter, both accused persons went away from the place on the ...

Riyaz Ui Hassan, Son of Late M.H.Sharis. Vs. Stats Rep, by Seshadripur ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Apprehending his arrest by Sheshadripuram police in connection with the case registered in Crime No.94/2005, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has presented this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of anticipatory bail.2. According to the prosecution, on the task of the complaint lodged by Deputy Secretary II, BDA. Bangalore, on 21.05.2005, the respondent - Police records of the aforesaid case against one Rajashekaraih and to a Deepak and took up investigation. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the. charge sheet in C.C.No.29464/2006 on the file of VDl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, against three persons namely M.Veeraiah as accused No.1, Puttaiah as accused No.2 and Riyaz, the petitioner herein as accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 468 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the charge sheet, accu...

Ahamad Pasha at Shankada Babu. Son of Abdul Hameed and anr. Vs. State ...

Court: Karnataka

1) Apprehending his arrest by Pension Mohalla Police of Hassan District, in connection with case in Crime No. 141/2008 registered for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, the petitioner has presented this petition under Section 438 of CP C seeking relief of anticipatory bail.2) According to the prosecution, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Thammegowda. son of Puttegowda. resident of Dyavappanakoppalu, Hassan District, at about 2.30 am on 25.01.2008, the aforesaid case came to be registered and investigation was taken -3) It was alleged in the complaint that four Buffaloes and one cow belonging to the complaint and two cows belonging to his neighbourer, which had been tethered in front of their houses in the village have been stolen by some miscreants during the intervening night of 24/25.10.2008. The case was registered against, un-known persons.4) The petition is opposed by the Respondent- State.5) I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the re...