Karnataka Court June 2015 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/s. Commercial and Business Aviation Services Vs. M/s. Swajas Air Cha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
(Prayer: The advocate for the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to confirm the appointment of Shri. S.N. Prashanth Chandra, Advocate as the sole arbitrator or appoint any other suitable arbitrator, for adjudication of disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, pursuant to Clause 10 of the Agreement dated 1.1.2010 etc.) 1. This petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity). 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent had engaged the services of the petitioner in Aviation Industry and that parties entered into an agreement dated 1.1.2010, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-B. Petitioner had inter alia to provide International Flight Services and Products to the respondent. According to the petitioner, it had carried out its obligations under the agreement in true spirit, but the ...
Lalitha and Others Vs. N. Kedarnath and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
(Prayer: This MFA is field U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated:18/03/2009 passed in MVC No.2162/2007 on the file of the IX Additional Judge, Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-7), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) 1. These two appeals respectively by the claimants and the Corporation are directed against the same judgment and award dated 18th March 2009, passed in MVC No.2162/2007, by the IX Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-7), (for short, Tribunal'). 2. While the claimants have filed the appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that compensation of Rs.12,40,000/- awarded by Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased NDRS Bhasker is on the lower side and the contributory negligence fixed at 50% on the part of the deceased rider of Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle liable to be re...
Basavaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, By the Inspector, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Spl. Judge and III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Special Case No.101/2002 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and etc.) 1. This appeal is preferred by appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.1.2010 passed by the Special Judge and III Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Mysore in Spl.Case No.101/2002 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act. 2. The facts leading to filing of the criminal case are that, P.W.1 one Vrushavendra.P has lodged the complaint dated 30.9.2000 to the Police Inspector, Lokayuktha police station, Mysore alleging that he is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint along wit...
Joseph Paul Pais Vs. State by Inspector of Police Central Bureau of In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) CR.P.C. praying to set aside the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the XXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCH-34) in Spl.C.No.35/2004 - convicting the appellant/accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 120B, read with Section 409, 477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and etc.) 1. This appeal is preferred by appellant-accused No.2 being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.10.2009 passed in S.C.No.35/2004 on the file of XXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special judge for CBI cases, Bangalore (CCH 34) holding the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 409 and 477A of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment as mentioned in the said judgment. 2. The facts leadi...
Siddappa and Others Vs. Tangewwa Nagappa Hosur and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
(Prayer: This writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quashing the Order dated 28-03-2014 in IA No.VI passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge Athani on OS No.19/2012 produced at Annexure-E.) 1. The defendants filed the above writ petition against the order dated 28.03.2014 on I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.19/2012 allowing the application filed by plaintiff No.3, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC') to include three more properties to the plaint schedule. 2. Respondents 1 to 8, who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.19/2012 for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties contending that all the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and they are entitled to share. The present petitioners/defendants filed the written statement and resisted the plaint averments. When the matter was posted for further cross-examination of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.3 filed an a...
Shantappa @ Shantakumar Vs. The State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP for the State. 2. The original complainant is the father of the victim one Shekargouda. The case of the complainant is that a week before the alleged incident that the victim and his friend were proceeding to the college, the accused is said to have teased the victim and the village elders had advised him not to carry on in the same vein. It is alleged that, enraged by this the accused is said to have sexually assaulted the deceased who is aged about 16 years. 3. It is stated that on 01.02.2015 at about 3:00 p.m., the deceased was returning home after giving dried cloths to her uncle, the accused came on his motorcycle, followed her, held her by her hand and has dragged her into the shed and committed rape and when the victim screamed the villagers who were nearby gathered around the shed and on seeing the people the accused is said to have run away from the place. The jurisdictional police registered a case in C...
Sowbhagyamma and Another Vs. M.D. Siddalingappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
1. Petitioners, who are the plaintiffs before the Court below, filed suit for declaration of title and also for recovery of suit schedule property. The case of action taken by the plaintiffs/ petitioners is that they are dispossessed from the suit schedule property. It is the further case of the first plaintiff, who is the wife of the second plaintiff, that she is the foster-daughter of Bheemanna and Basamma and she inherited the property on the death of her father. Defendants are the brothers of her father. They have deprived the inheritance of the property of Bheemanna and Basamma as the parents of the first plaintiff. She made an application under Order 3, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by executing power of attorney in favour of the second plaintiff, who is none other than her husband. The said application came to be rejected. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the rejection of application is an error of law and fact. When the plaintiff proved her case th...
Janardhan Alias Jagadish and Others Vs. State by Urva Police Station, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Cr. No. 15 of 2015 registered by the Urva Police Station. Offences are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,448, 427, 324, 504, 506, 307 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 2 (a) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981. 2. Bail application filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Court of the II Additional Director and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore on 23-4-2015 in Cri. Misc. No. 30 of 2015. The petitioners are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police. 3. The Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that investigation is still under progress and they are required for custodial interrogation. It is further argued that these petitioners along with other accused had formed an unlawful assembly and came to the house of the Vidya, sister of Arun with ...
Shri Raja Rajeshwari Agencies, Bangalore Vs. Rustique Furniture, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
Common Judgment: 1. Since the First Appellate Court passed the common judgment in respect of both the appeals preferred before it and since the common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, they have been taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion and to dispose of them by this common judgment. 2. Both these appeals are preferred by the appellant-complainant before this Court being aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 25-7-2006 passed by the XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, in Cri. A. Nos. 15091 and 15092 of 2005. 3. The complainant before this Court filed two private complaints in PCR Nos. 348 and 347 of 2002, which are subsequently registered as C.C. Nos. 26127 and 26128 of 2003 respectively. 4. In the criminal case pertaining to Cri. A. No. 2482 of 2006, the complainant filed the complaint before the Trial Court against the respondent-accused stating that he was having the business transaction with the respondent-...
Vijay Kumar Y. Khanapur Vs. The State of Karnataka, By Lokayukta Polic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2015
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of CR.P.C praying to set aside the judgment dated 21/22.09.2010 passed by the Spl. Judge, Shimoga in Spl. (PC) case No.5/2007 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.) 1. This appeal is preferred by appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Shimoga in Special (PC) Case No.5/2007 dated 21.9.2010. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the criminal case against the appellant-accused are that P.W.1 one Jagadeesh.G.M. filed the complaint against the appellant-accused as per Ex.P1 to the Lokayuktha Police Inspector, Shimoga alleging that he is working in the P.W.D department as first class contractor. During the year 2005-2006, he was given the work of road development by the Executive Engineer No.4, BRRBC Division, Bhadravathi from Ga...