Karnataka Court July 2012 Judgments

Prakash Alias Jnanaprakash and ors. Vs. Miss. T.S. Susheela and ors.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Code, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner praying to set aside the judgment and order of affirm dated 28.10.2009 in Criminal Appeal Judge, Bengaluru City (FTC-VI) and set aside the judgment and order of sentence dated 10.4.2007 passed by the 15th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in C.C.No.1311/2005, by allowing the Revision Petition.)1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner was the accused before the Trial Court whereby the complainant had alleged an offence punishable under 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) under the following circumstances. It was the case of the respondent that she had lent a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- on 25th December, 2002 to the petitioner and in repayment of the said amount, the accused has issued a cheque in...

The Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Vs. Sri Munichandr ...

Court: Karnataka

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):1. Sri B.V.Muralidhar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/B.B.M.P, after arguing the matter for sometime, submits that as the suit is of the year 2007, the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously without being influenced by the order impugned herein.2. Learned Counsel appearing on both sides submit that the parties will fully co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and they will not seek any unnecessary adjournments.3. On the facts of this case, I accept the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing M.F.A.No.5271 OF 2009 A/W MISC.CVL.NO.15965 OF 2009 & MISC.CVL.NO.13469 OF 2009 for the appellant. Accordingly, I make the following order:The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.5536/2007 before the end of December 2012, without granting any unnecessary adjournments in the matter and without being influenced by the order impugned herein. The appeal stands disposed of in the abov...

Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Hanumayya and anr.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 15.02.2008 passed in MVC No.7180/2006 on the file of XVIII Additional Judge, Court of small causes, member, motor accident claims tribunal-4, Bangalore (SCCH-4), awarding a compensation of Rs.45,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.)1) This appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.02.2008 passed by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-4), in MVC No.7180/2006, insofar as it relates to fastening the liability to satisfy the award on it.2) Respondent No.1 herein by name Hanumayya filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, M.V. Act), seeking compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred at about 8.30 pm. on 06.10.2006.3) According to the claimant, on the said date and time, while he was proceed...

Babu Rao, Mysore District. Vs. Nanjunda Settaru Mysore District

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner, praying that this Honble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 20.4.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, K.R. Nagar, In C.C.No.220/2003 and the order dated 19.2.2009 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in Criminal Appeal No.80/2008.)1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner was the accused before the Trial Court in a case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act, for brevity). It was the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15th November, 2002 and had promised to repay the amount on or before 30th December, 2002. In discharge of the loan, he had issued a cheque drawn on Navnagar Urban Co-operative Bank, Krishnarajanagar, Myso...

Smt. Narasamma and ors. Vs. K.V. Ramprasad and ors.

Court: Karnataka

(This Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 28.3.2012 in O.S.No.2375/2011, 2372/2011 2370/2011 and 2374/2011 on the file of the 7th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, etc.)1. The main question for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the suits filed by the first respondent for enforcement of the agreements for sale of granted lands without previous permission of the Government under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 are liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure?2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these cases are as under:The first respondent is the common plaintiff in O.S.Nos.2375/2011, 2372/2011, 2370/2011 and 2374/2011 on the file of the 7th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. He has filed the above against different defendants (the petitioners herein) for ...

Mohammad Yusuf Khan Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Dist ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.10701/2010 (SC/ST) dated 01/06/2011.)Vikramajit Sen, CJ (Oral)1. This Appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.06.2011 by which the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Special Deputy Commissioner were affirmed.2. The facts are largely not in dispute. On 15.07.1948, a Grant was made in favour of Sri A.D. Narasimha, who is the father of Respondent No.3 herein - Smt. Muniyamma, containing a covenant prohibiting alienation of the granted land in perpetuity. Even in the face of this covenant, Sri A.D. Narasimha sold the granted land on 27.09.1958 to Sri Ele Nagappa, who in turn sold it further, on 24.08.1964 to Smt. Bibi Jan. According to the Appellant, he purchased the land from Smt. Bibi Jan on 13.07.1995. Smt. Muniyamma approached the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land under the provi...

B. Sanjeeva Shetty. Vs. Land Tribunal, Udupi by Its Chairman and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2347

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 21.4.2006 annexure A by the Land Tribunal, Udupi.)Petitioner has sought for quashing the order of the Land Tribunal, Udupi dated 21.4.2006 annexure A. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner was rejected.It transpires, one Gopal Shetty the brother of Sindhu Shedthi filed Form 7 in respect of the properties in Sy.Nos.50/2B measuring 47 cents; 50/10B measuring 08 cents; 50/11B measuring 17 cents; 50/11 C measuring 14 cents; 50/13B measuring 56 cents and 50/8 measuring 1.32 acres situate of 76 Badagabettu Village which were granted by order dated 6.9.1979. The same has been challenged by the sister of Sindhu Shedthi after the death of Sindhu Shedthi. This Court, in WP 26987/1996, remanded the matter. After remand, during pendency of the matter, Girija Shedthi and Sarojini Shedthi sisters of Sindhu Shedthi who had filed the writ petition, have withdrawn their claim. Howev...

Gerb Vibration Control Systems Pvt Ltd and ors. Vs. the Assistant Labo ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2011 passed by R1.)ORDERS ON COURT-FEE1. Petitioner employer has called in question order dated 29.11.2011 Annexure-A passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Division-2 declaring five workmen listed therein as Protected workmen under section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in W.P.No.1144/2012.2. Petitioner Union in W.P.No.12888/2006 is espousing the cause of 386 workmen has sought for quashing of the order dated 21.07.2005 passed in Reference No.83/1997 Annexure-H whereunder the reference made by the Trade Union came to be answered against workmen by rejecting the reference.3. The Registry in W.P.1144/2012 has raised an objection as under:DCF of Rs.400/-to be paid, since the petitioner is challenging Annexure-A wherein five workmen are declared as Protected workmen.On account of prayer made by learned co...

Lawrence Milton. Vs. Rev. Johnson Paul and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(3)KCCR2234

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quahs the order dt.16.12.10 passed in Crl.R.P.No.104/2010 on the file of I Addl.S.J., Mysore in Cr.R.P.No.104/2010 and restore the complaint No.1735/2009 before JMFC., Mysore.)1. Petitioner in this petition has sought for taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 295, 297, 500 of IPC against the respondents accused.2. Petitioner is the complainant, who had filed a private complaint in P.C.R.No.1735/2009. Learned Magistrate taking cognizance, recording the sworn statement and also considering the documents, by order dated 25.3.2010 ordered for issue of summons. The order of issue of summons was called in question by the accused before the Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.104/2010. The Revisional Court by order dated 16.12.2010 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 25.3.2010, taking cognizance and issuing summons. As against the order of allowing the revision petition, compla...

Hemavathi Shivashankar. Vs. Dr. Tumkur S Shivashankar and anr.

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree 2.4.2002 passed in O.S.No.1960/1983 on the file of the I Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction.)1. 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. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that she was married to the first defendant at Somwarpet, Kodagu District on 16.5.1966 as per customary Hindu rites. The first defendant was a medical practitioner and was employed on various assignments, which required him to travel abroad. In the year 1969, he visited England on an assignment, where he had worked up to the year 1971. Thereafter, he had returned to India. He had again left for the United States Of America (Hereinafter referred to as the USA, for b...