Karnataka Court January 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M.G. Dattathreya Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Tilak Nagar Police St ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the Order dated 8.6.2012 in S.C. No. 705/2008 pending on the file of the presiding officer, Fast Track Court (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore, passed on I.A. No. 10 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. by PW-2-M.G.Dattathreya, younger brother of the deceased complainant-M.G.Shantha Kumar, challenging the order dated 8.6.2012 made on I.A.No.10 in S.C.No.705/2008 on the file of the Fast Tract Court-V, Bangalore City. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was lodged by the petitioner’s elder brother Shantha Kumar against Nagendra Reddy and another for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the IPC. On production of Cyber Forensic Analysis Report during trial by the expert witness, the petitioner came to know that Sri.Prasanna Kumar, A...
S. Kashinath Vs. Smt. Padmini Ramnath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
(This regular first appeal is filed under section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.11192/2006 on the file of the IX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, Decreeing the suit for Specific Performance.) 1. This appeal is by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in OS No.11192/2006. 2. A suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff for purchasing the property, a commercial apartment/flat bearing No.S-112 (47/136) situated in the First Floor, South Block, Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, Bangalore. It is stated that the plaintiff and the defendant are friends both in business transactions as well as in real life. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.9,25,000/- out of which, the plaintiff had paid Rs.8,50,000/- at the time of agreement which was entered between the parties on 28.10...
Shambanna Vs. the Special Land Acquisition and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.6.2012 in LAC No.536/2006 vide Annexure-C on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, at Mysore, etc.) 1. The petition coming on for preliminary hearing in the 'B' group, is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances. 2. The petitioner is the claimant in a matter referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in case no.LAC 536/2006 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Mysore. It transpires that respondents 3 to 11 herein had filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC', for brevity) seeking to implead themselves as claimants in the said case. They had contended that they had filed a civil suit against the present petitioner in O.S.No.900/2005 on the file of the Court of Small Cau...
M.H. Mahabaleshwar Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 28.9.2012, made in Appreal No.558/2010 marked at Annexure-H issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and to dismiss the appeal filed by respondent No.3.) 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 28.09.2012 in Appeal No.558/2010 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) at Bangalore, whereby, the Tribunal, after setting aside the Order/Award dated 06.10.2010, passed by the joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Karnataka State Co-operative Urban Banks Federation Ltd., Bangalore - 27 (for short, ‘the Arbitrator’) in Dispute No.JRD/UBF/538/2008-09, remanded the case back to the Arbitrator, for reconsideration. 2. Facts in brief are: The petitioner was an employee of the 3rd respondent - The Davangere Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Davanagere - 577 002. Petitioner was dism...
Basappa and Others Vs. Rajshree
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 8 in P.C.No. 44/2011 pending on the file of JMFC., Muddebihal. Based on the private complaint lodged by the respondent alleging the offence under Section 494 r/w Section 34 of IPC, process is issued. Said order is called in question in this petition. 2. The complainant alleges that the first petitioner is the husband of the complainant. During the subsistence of marriage between the respondent (complainant) and the first petitioner, the first petitioner allegedly married the second petitioner viz., Basamma. Petitioners 3 to 8 and two others said to have actively participated and assisted and also instigated the second marriage between the first and second petitioners and that therefore the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. 3. During the course of enquiry, the complainant gave her sworn statement. Admittedly, she is not the eye witness to the alleged second marriage. According to the complainant, her uncle Basapp...
Govind Traders (Dealing in Cotton and Cotton Seeds), Bijapur Vs. Amrut ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
1. This is the defendants second appeal against the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below. 2. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of money based on accounts. Suit tame to be decreed by the trial Court and the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed by the first appellate Court. 3. Sri D.P. Ambekr, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the suit itself was not maintainable in view of Section 84 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as APM Act). He further submits that imposition of future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is bad in the eye of law. Following questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the suit was not maintainable? 2. Whether the Courts below are justified in imposing interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit? 4. The point of lack of jurisdiction is not raised by the defendant before the t...
Mahima Charan and Others Vs. Kanyakumari and Another
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. This petition is filed praying for quashing the order dated 7.7.2012 passed by the 5th Additional JMFC., Gulbarga in Crl.Misc.No.125/2012. The matter arises under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the complainant, her marriage with the first respondent has taken place on 30.7.2009 in Mantralaya and the said marriage was love marriage. Petitioners 2 to 9 are the relatives of the first petitioner. According to the complainant, the first petitioner has not provided money for maintaining complainant and her child; he has not provided food, clothes, medicine, etc. for complainant and her child and forced the complainant and her child out of the house; he has not paid the rents for rented accommodation of the complainant and that he has disposed of Stridhan property of the complainant. 2. However, vague allegations are made against other petitioners. On going through...
Jyoti Vs. Suryakant
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. 1. This petition is filed for transferring of M.C.No. 20/2012 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Humnabad to Family Court at Gulbarga. 2. Petitioner herein is the wife of respondent. Respondent herein has filed petition for divorce before the Senior Civil Court at Humnabad. Petitioner herein alleges that she being the lady finds it difficult to approach Humnabad Court every now and then, particularly, in view of the fact that she is suffering from lack of finance. According to the petitioner herein, respondent is a practicing Advocate at Gulbarga and is a businessman also; and that earlier, similar petition was filed by the respondent herein in M.C.No.44/2003 at Gulbarga and in the said petition, interim maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month was awarded. However, the respondent herein did not pay the said maintenance, consequent upon which, the petition came to be closed by the Family Court at Gulbarga. According to the petitioner herein, resp...
Prashanth Rajan Vs. Manager, New India Assurance Co., Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
(This Misc.Cvl. is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 357 days in filing the above appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.) 1. This Misc.Cvl. is filed by the counsel for Appellant, for condoning the delay of 357 days in filing the appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for Insurer. 3. The delay in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained by showing sufficient cause and the same is accepted. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, this Misc.Cvl. is allowed. Delay of 357 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to any interest for the said period, if he succeeds in the appeal....
Chandru Vs. the Additional Commissioner (East), Bruhath Bangalore Maha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 3.12.2009 produced at Annexure-A. This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'b' group this day, the court made the following) ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 3.12.2009 which is impugned at Annexure- A to the petition. By the said order, the first respondent has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to implead himself as a party to the proceedings and has consequently ordered the change of khatha to the name of the 2nd respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 2. The petitioner herein claims right in respect of property under a sale deed dated 21.3.2007 executed by Smt. Parimala and her son Sri. Ravikiran. The case of the petitioner is that the property originally belonged to the husband of Smt. Parimala viz., Late N. Raju and after ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »