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.
Thirumalamma and Others Vs. the Principal Secretary Government of Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
(THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 and 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.2.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 28.2.2002 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 3.12.2002 AT ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED UNDER SECTION 17 AND 19 OF THE KUDA ACT RESPECTIVELY.) The petitioning land-owners' grievance in W.P.Nos.394/2008, 9966/2008, 1914/2007, 2447/2008, 2733/2008, 1915/2007, 17000/2008 and 17052-17054/2008, 37548-37549/2009, 25570-25572/2009, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011, 11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010 and 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-41519/2010 and 41676-41695/2010 and 41520-41526/2010 is over the issuance of the preliminary notification, dated 26.2.2002 and the final notification, dated 3.12.2002 issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) respectively of the Karnataka Urban Development Autho...
P. Rama Murthy Vs. Abdula Shariff and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
(This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 24.02.2011 passed in MVC No.5031/2009 on the file of MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of the same.) 1. Claimant in MVC No.5031/2009 on the file of MACT, Bangalore, has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein. 2. The said appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 222 days. Hence I.A.I/2012 is filed seeking condonation of the same. 3. Heard the counsel appearing for appellant. Perused the affidavit filed in support thereof. On going through the same, it is seen that after the award was passed by the Tribunal, the same was satisfied by the respondents during the third week of December, 2011. Sofaras the delay is concerned, it is stated that the claimant was under the bonafide belief that his lawyer will file the appeal by himself and when he had gone to the Court for withdrawal of amount, he cam...
Devaraju Vs. State by Doddaballapura Rural Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
(This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.99/2012 of Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Bangalore Rural District, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.) 1. Apprehending his arrest by Doddaballapura Rural Police in connection with the case in Crime No.99/12 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the petitioner has presented this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. 2. The petition is opposed by respondent - State. 3. I have heard both sides and perused the records made available. 4. According to the case of the prosecution, one Anjinappa, son of Late Gopalappa resident of Ittappanahalli village in Chickballapur Taluk lodged a report at about 3.45 p.m. on 21.3.2012 about the unnatural death of his daughter Sampangamma in Manchagondanahalli village. In the said complaint it was further alleged that this ...
Sadiq Vs. Shakeel Mohammed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
(Prayer: This H.R.R.P. is filed u/s 46(1) of Karnataka Rent Act, against the judgement and decree dated 3.10.2012 passed in HRC No.10079/2011 on the file of xv additional judge, court of small causes, Bangalore, allowing the petition filed u/s 27(2)(a)(o) and (r) of karnataka rent act.) ORDER Revision petitioner and his counsel are present. Revision respondent and his counsel are present. Joint memo is filed. The joint memo reads as follows: "The parties have settled the above matter at the instance of this Hon'ble court under the following terms: 1. The petitioner has requested to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession on or before 30.6.2014 (Thirty June Two Thousand and Fourteen). 2. The petitioner has agreed to pay the rent on or before 10th of every month. 3. The petitioner has no objection for the respondent to withdraw the rents deposited before the trial court and this Hon'ble court. 4. The petitioner undertakes not to sublet the premises and also undertakes to pay the ren...
Venkatesh Naik Vs. the State of Karnataka by Mahila Police Station, Sh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
1. Apprehending his arrest by the respondent Mahila Police, Shimoga in connection with case registered in Crime No.115/12 for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 307, 324, 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, the petitioner arraigned as accused No.1 has presented this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. 2. The petition is opposed by respondent-State. 3. I have heard both sides and perused the records made available. 4. Petitioner is the husband of the complainant-Smt. Kusuma B. Their marriage was solemnized on 7.5.1999. From the said wed lock, they have two sons who are presently aged about 12 and 10 years. According to the prosecution, the aforesaid case came to be registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by Smt. B. Kusuma on 12.10.2012. In the complaint, inter alia it was alleged that the complainant has been subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and also relatives of her husband by coercing her to bring fur...
Smt. Devika Siddalingagowda and Others Vs. the Commissioner, City Muni ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
(These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in writ petition Nos. 48691-693/12 dated 20-12-2-2012.) 1. These appeals are preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has declined to interfere with the notice issued by the Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur District convening a meeting of Municipal Council to consider the no confidence motion on 07.12.2012. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has stated the facts elaborately and therefore it is not necessary for us to re-state the said facts. 2. From the material available on record it is clear that the first petitioner Smt. Devika Siddalingegowda, wife of Ramesh Gowda was elected as President of City Municipal Council, Tumkur District, Tumkur on 17.03.2012. Petitioners 2 and 3 are members of the said Municipal Council. 25 members out of 38 members of the Council made a request in writing on 08.11.2012 which is addressed t...
K. Babjan, Bhadravathi and Another Vs. Shimoga Urban Development Autho ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
(Prayer: These W.Ps. are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution Praying to declare Rule 6(3)(d) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Disposal of corner sites and commercial sites) Rules 1991 as ultra vires/unconstitutional.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners seek declaration that Rule 6(3)(d) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Disposal of Corner sites and commercial sites) Rules 1991 (for short “the Rules”) is Ultra Virus the Constitution and is in conflict with Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to refund an amount of Rs.1,86,250/- and Rs.1,56,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of payment. 3. The petitioners had participated in an auction of site/s by making a payment of Rs.10,000/- by way of deposit, as contemplated by clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules, ...
Venkatesh and Others Vs. Station House Officer, Ramamurthy Nagar Polic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having argued the matter for sometime submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to renew his request for bail soon after the evidence is recorded and further requests to issue direction to the Sessions Judge of Fast Track Court to complete the trial expeditiously. 2. In view of the submissions made, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioners are at liberty to renew their request for bail soon after completion of examination of material witnesses. Any how, learned Sessions Judge of Fast Track Court is directed to complete the trial preferably within six months from the date of committal of case of the Sessions Court....
Vidya Manohara Teertha Swamigalu Peethadipathy and Another Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
(This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order of Annx-K dt: 26.05.2012 of the R1 to 4 appointing the R6 as the administrator of the petitioner mutt.) These two writ petitions are directed against the orders / notifications, both dated 26.5.2012, appointing an administrator for Sri. Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt (for short `the Mutt) and constituting a Committee to guide him. The petitioners are also seeking implementation of the endorsement dated 15.10.2004 issued by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Office, representing the Government, stating that the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short `the new Act') would not apply to the Mutt. The first writ petition (W.P. No.17370/2012) is filed by Mathadhipathi of the Mutt, whereas the second writ petition (W.P. No.17391/2012) is filed by Mr. Sosale N. Prakash, duly appointed by the Mathadhipathi, as an...
Sri Mallegowda Vs. the President, Zilla Panchayath, Mandya District an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
(These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the Order at Ann-D, dated 23.10.2010 passed by the R1, in appeal bearing No.ZPM/Appeal/18/08-09 and No. ZPM/Appeal/ 16/2008-09 respectively.) 1. In both these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 23.10.2010 which are impugned at Annexure-D to the respective petitions. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, though rival contentions have been urged with regard to right of the parties to the property which is the subject matter of these petitions, the question that would arise for consideration at the outset is as to whether the Zilla Panchayat (respondent No.1) could have entertained an appeal under Section 237 as against the confirmation order passed by the Taluk Panchayat relating to the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. 3. In this regard, the matter is no more res integra in view of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »