Karnataka Court February 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.
Sunil Suresh Bellad Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep.by State Public Pro ...
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition Is Filed U/Sec. 439 of CR.P.C. Is Seeking To Release The Petitioner On Bail In Gokak Town P.S. Crime No.185/2012 For The Offence P/U/Sec. 302 IPC. 2) 1. This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No.185/2012 of Gokak Town Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on 28.09.2012. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, deceased Krishna was in love with one Salomi and in that connection there was some misunderstanding between himself and Vishnu Kullur who was also proclaiming that, he is in love with her. It is further case of the complainant-Sri.Maruthi, who is father of the deceased that on 27.09.2012, when the petitioner and the deceased along with their friends met together near the Jadhav bridge, there was some altercation between the friends and during the said altercation, it is the case of the prosecution that, the petitioner assaulted the deceased Krishna by means of knife on his neck and ran away. Krishna d...
Mrs. Peeranbi Vs. Hajimalang
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of the Crl.P.C. praying to call for records of the court below and set aside the judgment and order dated 6.10.2007 passed by the JMFC-II Court, Bijapur in C.C.No.222/2005 and convict the respondent.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant was the complainant before the Trial Court, who had alleged an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act' for brevity). The complaint having been contested, was dismissed. Hence the present appeal is filed. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant and the respondent were good friends. Since the respondent was in need of money, he had raised a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the appellant, which was lent under two installments dated 25.06.2003 and 26.10.2003. The same was to be repaid on or before 1.10.2004. The same not having been paid on ...
Sharnabasappa, and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka, Through Kamalapu ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
(Prayer: Gulbarga-585 101. ... Respondent. (By Shri S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 23.10.2008 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in Special Case NO.131/2004, convicting the appellants / accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC and each accused are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and further, each accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and further, each accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,0...
Mallesh Vs. the State of Karnataka, Represented by Circle Inspector of ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 read with Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. praying to acquit the appellant on all charges levelled and framed against him in S.C.No.79/2007, by setting aside the judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and P.O., Fast Track Court-III, Raichur, in S.C.No.79/2007 dated 29.09.2007, impugned herein, and to release the appellant from judicial custody.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The appellant was the accused before the Trial Court in the following background: Lakshmi, the daughter of Pomanna and Shankaramma, had alleged that she along with her parents, were residents of Alkot Tanda, within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, in Devadurga Taluk. The appellant was the resident of A.G. Colony and was related to Lakshmi. A.G Colony was about 2 kms from Alkot Tanda. It is claimed that during July 2006, Lakshmi was aged about 19 and during that time, her parents had gone in search ...
Smt. Nirmala Vs. Bengalooru Development Authority, Rep. by Its Commiss ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
(This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to quash the impugned endorsement/order issued by the Second Respondent dated 12.10.2011 to the Petitioner, Vide Annexure T.) Petitioner’s vendor-in-title by name Sri O.J. Varghese, a successful bidder in an auction of a corner site bearing No.5DM 302 on 12.11.1991 held by the Bangalore Development Authority, led to issue of a Possession Certificate Annexure ‘B’ followed by the execution and registration of a Conveyance Deed dated 15.9.1995 Annexure ‘C’. Petitioner’s vendor made a representation dated 28.8.1998 to allot marginal land measuring 360 sq. ft. located adjacent and on the eastern side of the said site. According to the petitioner, in identical circumstances, when a writ petition was filed by one L Anantharamaiah, owner of site bearing No. 5DM 308, the BDA allotted marginal land on 02.05.2003. So also, it is said, in the case of Sri B Ramesh, owner ...
Mohd. Munner, Shimoga Taluk Vs. Mohammed Salar Abbas, Shimoga and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
(Prayer: This Appeal is filed Under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 passed in R.A.No.02/2005 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Shimoga, allowing the appeal and sitting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2000 passed in O.S.No.219/94 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judg, (Jr.Dn), Shimoga.) JUDGMENT Facts leading to filing of this appeal is a glaring example of how litigants can be successful in taking undue advantage of beneficial procedural laws. The reasons that follow in this judgment would act as mirror to unravel this factual matrix. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by the Prl. District Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No.2/2005 dated 31.10.2009 whereunder appeal has been allowed and partial judgment and decree dated 29.09.1995 passed in O.S.No.219/1994 by the Prl. Munsiff, Shimoga decreeing the suit for specific performance against defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 has been set aside and suit itself has been dis...
Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, by Sanjayanagar Police, Rep. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.417/2012 of Sanjaynagar P.S., Bangalore, for the offences P/U/S 3, 4, 5,7 of Immoral of Traffic Act and etc.) Apprehending his arrest by the respondent- Sanjaynagar police in connection with the case registered in Crime No.417/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the petitioner arraigned as accused No.1 has presented this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking relief of anticipatory bail. 2. The petition is opposed by respondent-State. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the records made available. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid case registered by the respondent-police for non bailable offences. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he i...
indumathi Hunasagi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Chickmagalur and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
(Prayer: These writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act Praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No. 2686/2010 and 3083/2010 (SC/ST) dated 21.06.2011.) K. Sreedhar Rao, A.C.J. Oral: 1. The material facts disclose that, the land bearing sy.No.13 (New No.107) of H.Rangapura Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chickmagalur, measuring 3 acres each was granted in the year 1971 to respondents 4 and 5. One Kalleshappa said to be in possession of the said land, mortgaged the said property in favour of Canara Bank, Tarikere and took loan. Upon default, the Bank filed a suit in OS 55/78 for recovery of the mortgaged money. The property was notified for public auction by Court sale. The appellant purchased the said property in the public auction on 13.7.1984. 2. Respondent nos.4 and 5 made an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka SC and ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short `the PTCL Act’). The Assistant Commiss...
M.K. ShafiuddIn Vs. Halima Khatoon and Others
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.55/2010 on the file of the Family Judge at Raichur.) The petitioner is said to be the husband of respondent no.1 and respondents 2 and 3 are their children. The petitioner and respondent no.1 are separated. The children are living with respondent no.1. The respondents had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC', for brevity), seeking maintenance in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for herself and a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month for the children, that is respondents 2 and 3, for their maintenance from the date of the petition. The said petition was filed in the year 2010. The petitioner on receiving notice of the same, has appeared therein and has filed his objections. The marriage is admitted and there is no dispute that the children are their own. However, it was alleged by r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›