Karnataka Court April 2012 Judgments

Mr. Chidananda Son of Shri. Guru Murthy and ors. Vs. the State of Karn ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners who have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.02/2012 of Tavarekere Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 42 and 3(1) of Karnataka Miner Mineral Concession Rule 1994, have sought for the relief of anticipatory bail.2. At the time of hearing the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that subsequent to filing of this petition, petitioner No,3 accused No.3 was arrested and when produced before die learned Magistrate, he has been released on bail. Therefore, this petition in so far as it relates to petitioner, does not survive for consideration. To this effect he has also filed a memo Memo is placed on record and in the light of the said demo, thin petition is considered only in respect of petitioner No8? 1 and 7.3. According to the prosecution, on the basis of the complaint lodged by Village Accou...

Sri.Ashoka Son of Narayana Rao. Vs. the State by Range Forest Officer.

Court: Karnataka

1. In this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C, the petitioners who have been arrayed as accused Nos.6 and 7 in FOC case Nc.12/11-12 of Range Forest Office, Balehonnur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 9, 39, 50(C), 51 and 55 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, have sought for an order to enlarge them on bail.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.2.2012 while accused Nos.1 to 4 were trying to transport skin of Tiger and Leopard in auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-18-A-3615 for the purpose of A¬selling them, the auto rickshaw was intercepted, accused Nos.1 to 4 were caught hold and the skin of the Tiger as well as leopard in the auto rickshaw were seized and later, on interrogation, accused No. 4 Manjunath disclosed the killing of a female Leopard by connecting live electric wire around his cattle shed and thereafter removing skin as well as the nails of the Leopard and then selling two nails of Leopard to each of these petition...

Smt. Rachamma, Wife of Late Chikkaiah. Vs. M.P. Lakshmaiah, Son of Lat ...

Court: Karnataka

1. 1st defendant in O.S.No.1113/1994 on the file of I Addl. I Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mysore, is the appellant. Respondents instituted the said suit against the appellant and another, to pass a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit claim or dumping rubbish materials and from letting waste water to flow in the open space etc. The suit having been contested, after trial, was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. Plaintiffs having filed first appeal i.e., R.A.No.46/1998 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge & CJM, Mysore, the appeal was allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed. Said Judgment and decree has been questioned by the 1st defendant.2. This appeal was admitted on 03.02.2012 to consider the following substantial question of law:"Whether the Judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated for non-consideratio...

Arunkumar and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka, by the Secretary to t ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2206

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure – H order passed by R-2 under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act dated 8.9.2011 and Annexure-), final declaration issued under section 28(4) of the KIAD Act by the 1strespondent published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 7.12.2011 etc.,)1. Petitioners have sought for quashing the order at Annexure-H dated 8.9.2011 passed under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) and Annexure-), final declaration dated 7.12.2011 passed under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. The petitioners have also sought for quashing the consequential notices issued pursuant to the final declaration.2. Petitioners are the joint owners of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.68 of Guddadarangavvanahallim Kasaba hobli, Chitradurga taluk measuring 5 acres 16 guntas. On 24.7.2010 a notification under Section 3(1) of the KIAD Act was issue...

Chetan P. Tayal and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by the Prin ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012ILR(Kar)2354; 2012(3)KCCR2392

(Prayer: W.Ps are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order at Annexure-U dated 29-2-2012 passed by the 5threspondent in Case Nos.41, 42, 43, 44/09-10 and to direct the Tahsildar to approve the scheme for joint development project.)1. The Tahsildar, Srirangapatna, initiated proceedings under Sections 63, 64, 65, 65-A, 66 and 66-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 on the ground that the family of first petitioner possess excess lands than the ceiling limit. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-U dated 29-2-2012 is passed holding that the excess lands belong to Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking to quash the impugned order.2. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and therefore, the same cannot be sustained.3. Section 67 of the Act provides for surrender of lands. The relevant po...

V. Muniraj. Son of Venkataramanappa and ors. Vs. V. VenkataramanappA. ...

Court: Karnataka

ANANDA BYRAREDDY, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants respondents are served with notice of the appeal, but have remained unrepresented.2. The appellant, now represented by his legal representatives, was the plaintiff before the trial court. It was the case of the plaintiff that he and defendants no. 2 to 4 were the sons of defendant no. 1. The plaintiff and defendant no.4 were said to be the sons of defendant no. 1 through his first wife. Munilaksmamma. Defendants no.2 and 3 were born through the second wife of defendant no. 1, Jayamma.The plaintiff claimed that the parties constituted a Hindu joint family and it owned ancestral landed Kaudenahalli. There was also a house and vacant site at Yerayanapalya, a hamlet of Kaudenahalli.It is staled that there was a partition between the grandfather of the plaintiff, his father and his two uncles, namely. Kumlappa and Narayanappa. At the partition. land bearing survey no. 122/2 was divided into three shares. The plaintiff s fat...

R. Srinivasa Murthy and ors. Vs. Menchmnappa, Son of Lakshmaiah and or ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent remains absent.2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. It was the ease of the plaintiff that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant, to purchase a parcel of land measuring 40 feet by 150 feet in Survey no.71/5 of Kavalbyrasanrira, Bangalore- North Taluk. The sale price agreed upon was 1,6000/- The agreement was dated 21.4.1980. An advance amount of 8000/ was paid at the time of execution of the agreement. The land in question was agricultural land, which was sought to be sold by the vendor as a house sites. The sale-transaction was to be completed, by the execution and registration of a sale deed, within three month from the date of the agreement. The defendant did but abide by the agreement and failed to execute the sale deed on the expiry of the time agreed upon. The plaintiff had issued a notice and followed-up with a suit for specific performance of contrac...

B.A. Indiramma, Bangalore Vs. the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as the owner for 6 Acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/1 of Beniganahalli Village, Bangalore East taluk and to direct the respondents to pass an Award in the name of the petitioner for 6 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/1 of Beniganahalli village, Bangalore East taluk etc.,)1. Petitioner is the daughter of late B.M. Appa Reddy, who was the owner of Sy.No.15/1 of Beniganahalli village to an extent of 6 acres 28 guntas. The said land was sought to be acquired for extension of NGEF Factory. For the said purpose, preliminary notification was issued on 6.6.1964 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and final notification was issued on 30.1.1965 under section 6(1) of the said Act. The Award came to be passed on 21.12.1966. According to the respondents, the award amount came to be deposited in the Civil Court on 9.7.1986 i.e. after ...

R. Srinivasa Murthy and Others Vs. Munichinnappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR1703; 2012(4)KantLJ691

(Prayer: This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96, Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgement and decree dated 28.8.2002 passed in O.S.No.495/1981 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with costs of Rs.3,000/- to the appellants herein.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent remains absent. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant, to purchase a parcel of land measuring 40 feet by 150 feet in Survey no.71/5 of Kavalbyrasandra, Bangalore North Taluk. The sale price agreed upon was Rs.16000/-. The agreement was dated 21.4.1980. An advance amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement. The land in question was agricultural land, which was sought to be s...

The Branch Manager, the Pachhapur Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pachhapur Vs ...

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

K. Ramanna, President This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party to set aside the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the DF, Belgaum in Complaint No.665/2009 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed in part directing this appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 11% p.a from the date of deposit i.e. 10-10-2001 till realization with litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/- and directed to comply the said order within 30 days from the date of order. 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 86 days caused in preferring this appeal supported by an affidavit of Sri. U.B. Ullagaddi, General manager, Pachhapur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pachhapur, Taluk Hukkeri, Belgaum explaining the delay. 3. In spite of service of notice issued to the respondent, neither respondent appeared in p...