Karnataka Court October 2014 Judgments
Mahadevappa Rampure Medical College and Others Vs. The State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order of direction, quashing the impugned endorsement dated: 13.06.2014 in No.RGUHS/AC2/Adm/MBBS/M015/2013-14 under Annexure-F issued by the 2nd Respondent.) 1. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, petitions are heard for final disposal at this stage. 2. Petitioner No.1 is Medical College. Remaining petitioners are the students of 1st year MBBS Course admitted by petitioner No.1, for the academic year 2013-14. They seek the following reliefs in writ petitions: "(a) Issue a writ in the nature certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing, the impugned endorsement dated 13.6.2014 in No.RGUHS/AC2/ADM/MBBS/MO15/2013- 14 under Annexure-F issued by the 2nd respondent, in the interest of justice. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction directi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar D. Gowda and Others Vs. State by Vijayanagara Police and Anoth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
(Prayer: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR and charge sheet in Crime No.322/12 of Vijayanagar Police Station and C.C.No.17685/12 which is pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.) 1. The petitioners 2 and 3 and the counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 and her counsel are present before the Court. 2. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.17685/12 registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506(B) IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It appears this Court has referred the parties to mediation before the Mediation Centre, Bangalore. The parties have entered into compromise and settled their entire conflict in this regard. It is stated in the compromise petition at Paragraph V that the petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh Vs. M/s. Samruddha Builders and Developers and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the appellant praying to set aside the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 19457/2007 - dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In the circumstances that the respondents are not shown to have been served, notice to the respondents in this case is dispensed with. 2. The appeal is considered for final disposal, having regard to the circumstances of the case. The appellant was the complainant before the court below alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act', for brevity). The appellant's statement was recorded by the court below and cognizance was taken. A case was registered and summons were ordered to the respondents - accused. Though process was paid from time to t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ganesh Naik and Another Vs. Abdul Kareem and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
(Prayer: This Rsa Is Filed U/S 100 R/W O Xlii R 1 Cpc Against The Judgment And Decree Dated 30.5.2006 Passed In Ra No.45/1999 On The File Of The Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kundapur, Dismissing The Appeal And Confirming The Judgment And Decree Dated 3.9.1999 Passed In Os No.687/1989 On The File Of The Ii Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kundapura.) 1. Concurrent findings are called in question before this Court by filing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants are the defendants 1 and 2 of an original suit bearing O.S.No.687/1989 which was pending on the file of the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kundapura. Respondent No.1 herein was the lone plaintiff in the said suit. Respondent No.2 was defendant No.3 in the said suit and he had not filed any written statement. Suit filed for the relief of possession of the tenanted property from defendant Nos.1 and 2 has been decreed as prayed for vide judgment dated 03.09.1999. As against the said judgment and decr...
Tag this Judgment!C.N. Kumar Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Rep.by its Commissione ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 as unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires and to restrain the State of Karnataka and its officers from enforcing the provisions of Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner in public interest praying to declare Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 as unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires and also for issuance of writ of mandamus restraining the State and its officers from enforcing the provisions of said Section 14-A of the Act. It appears, some other persons have also sought to follow the mandatory constitutional provisions under Article 243ZE of Constitution of India read with the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. 2. Petitioner claiming to be a person having concern for the public sa...
Tag this Judgment!Mr C N Kumar S/O Late C S Narayan Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE29h DAY OF OCTOBER2014BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.21436 / 2005 (BDA) BETWEEN: C.N.Kumar S/o late C.S.Narayan Aged 50 years, R/at No.18, 4th Cross, 10th `C Main, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore. ( By Sri Aditya Sondhi, Sr.Counsel and Sri Siddartha S.G., Smt.B.V.Nidhishree And Sri A.R.Srinivasa, Advocates ) AND: .. Petitioner 1. Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore, Rep.by its Commissioner.2. State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development M.S.Building, Bangalore, Rep.by its Secretary.3. State Election Commissioner, Karnataka, Karnataka State Co-operative Sales Society Building, 1st Floor, No.8, Cunningham Road, Bangalore. ( By Sri Nanjunda Reddy, Sr.Counsel, Sri K.Krishna and Sri Shivakumar, Advocates for R-1 .. Respondents 2 Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Add.Advocate General For R-2 and Sri K.N.Phaneendra, Standing Counsel for R-3) This Writ Petition is fil...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.M. Deepak Kumar Vs. Dr. S. Poornima
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
(Prayer: This Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Order Dated 30.04.2014 In M.C.No.1018/2012 On The File Of The Vi Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, At Bangalore Vide Annexure-A.) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in M.C.No.1018/2012 by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore striking out the defence put forth to the case. 2. Facts relevant for the deciding of this writ petition are the following: (i) The parties are estranged couple. Their marriage was solemnized on 15.12.2010, in accordance with Hindu customs and rites, at Rajatha Bhavana Kalyana Mantapa, Malleswaram, Bangalore. M.C.No.1018/2012, out of which this writ petition arises, was brought by the respondent - Dr. Poornima, under S.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), against the petitioner - Dr. Deepak Kumar M.M., on 24.03.2012, to pass a decree of divorce and dissolve the marriage solemnize...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabala Vs. State By Malur Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Praying To Set Aside The Judgment Dated 11.12.2009, Passed In S.C.No.103/2008, On The File Of Prl. Sessions Judge At Shimoga, Convicting Appellant/ Accused No.2 For Offences Punishable Under Sections 504, 302 R/W Sec. 109 Ipc and Etc.) 1. This appeal by the appellant/accused No.2 (hereinafter referred as accused no.2) is against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2009 in S.C.No.103/2008 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga, whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 504, 109 r/w Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.02.2008, Vishwanath/accused No.1 (hereinafter referred as accused no.1), who is juvenile in conflict with law, at the instigation of the appellant/accused No.2-Mahabala, his father, assaulted d...
Tag this Judgment!George Joseph and Another Vs. HMT (International) Limited and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioners praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.381/2003 confirming the judgment and order dated 17.6.2003 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.20138/1997.) 1. The petition is admitted and considered for final disposal. 2. The present petition is filed by the accused before the trial court. It transpires that M/s HMT (International) Limited, a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, had filed a complaint as on 30.12.1996, against one M/s Nucor Wires Limited, Bangalore and its 7 directors, alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity) on the d...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Vinay Babu Vs. N. Ramya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
(Prayer: This Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Order Dated 7.3.2014 Passed By The 1st Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court At Bangalore In Mc No.1322/2013 Passed On I.A. No.III Vide Annexure-G.) 1. The parties are estranged couple. Their marriage was solemnized on 02.02.2012. Petitioner - husband, filed M.C.No.1322/2013, for divorce, under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The case has been contested by the respondent - wife, by filing counter. I.A.No.3 filed by the respondent, under Section 24 of the Act, despite objections filed by the petitioner, having been allowed in part, on 07.03.2014, vide order as at Annexure-G and the petitioner having been directed to pay interim maintenance at Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the date I.A.No.3 was filed, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri B. Ramesh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Pramila S.Nesargi, learned senior ad...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »