Karnataka Court August 2015 Judgments
Syed Tanzeem Ahmed @ Tanzeem Vs. State of Karnataka, by Basaveswaranag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 praying to set aside the order dated 3.4.2013 passed in Spl. C.C.No. 52/2013 on the file of the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and consequently enlarge him on bail in Crime No.384/2012 registered in Basaveswaranagar Police Station, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 153-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act and Sections 10, 13, 18 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Crime No.384/2012 registered in Basaveswaranagar Police Station, Bangalore City which is later Investigated by National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad.) 1. Criminal Appeal No.251/2014 is filed by the appellant/Accused No.25 against the order dated 3rd A...
Tag this Judgment!Subhas Marutirao Yadav Vs. Savakka and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
(Prayer: This RSA is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 11.2.2014 passed by the III ADDL. Senior Civil Judge, HUBLI, in R.A.No.124/13, and etc.) 1. Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This is the defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2014 made in R. A. No.124/2013 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2013 made in O.S.No.35/2007 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli, decreeing the suit in-part, declaring that the plaintiff is owner of property and directed the defendants to hand-over possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within three months and refused to grant the relief of mesne profits. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.35/2007 for declaration of title and for possession of the suit property and...
Tag this Judgment!Thaheer Nissar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
1. The appellant-accused has questioned the judgment and order of conviction dated 21-6-2011 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.139 of 2010. Under the said judgment, accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 392 read with Sections 397 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860; the accused has challenged the correctness and validity of the said judgment on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that P.W.1-Rajamma, who is the daughter-in-law of deceased Shivamma, has lodged the complaint on 29-11-2009 before Mandi Police Station, Mysuru, alleging that herself, her husband, her two children namely Hemanth and Veerabhardraswamy and her mother-in-law Shivamma were staying together in the house situated at B.N. Road, Mandi Mohalla. Her mother-in-law Shivamma took one old house in Akbar Road long back on rental basis and during the day time deceased Shivamma was doing coconut business and coin ...
Tag this Judgment!Arundati Sharma Vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Common Order: 1. Since the parties in both the petitions are the same and the petitioner herein is arraigned as the accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), in respect of the cheques issued by the Company M/s. Vikat Hotels Private Limited, of which she is the Director and in both petitions common question of law since raised, both petitions are head together. 2. Though the petitions are posted for admission, the matters are heard and taken up for final disposal. 3. The fact is: The petitioner-Smt. Arundhathi Sharma is the Director of M/s. Vikat Hotels Private Limited. The Managing Director of the said Company is none other than her own son namely N.K. Kashyap. The respondent herein lodged a private complaint in PCR No.464 of 2011 (Criminal Petition No.646 of 2015) and PCR No.1237 of 2011 (Criminal Petition No.647 of 2015) against the Company along with two accused persons, the Managing ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramamurthy and Another Vs. State by Chikkajala Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
1. Petitioners have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 504, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Cr.No.86 of 2015 of Chikkajala Police Station. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 12-7-2015 complainant-Manjunatha s/o. Ramachandra has filed a complaint to the respondent-police stating that on 11-7-2015 at about 4 p.m. one Ganesh (who is the servant of the complainant) walking near the poultry farm, Palanahalli. At that time, accused 1-Chandrashekar stopped him and forcefully taken Rs.1,500/- from his pocket and also beaten him. The incident was intimated by the said servant Ganesh to the complainant. Thereafter complainant on the same day in the evening met accused 1 and enquired about the incident. But accused 1 scolded him in filthy language and also threatened the complainant that he would bring his followers to teach a lesson. On the same day at about 6-45 p.m. when the complainant and his servant Ganesh standing near the...
Tag this Judgment!Udechand Vs. B.V. Krishna Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
1. This revision petition is filed by the tenant under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, the Act') challenging the order of eviction dated 21-2-2015 passed in H.R.C.No.30 of 2010 by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Respondent herein filed petition under Section 27(2)(a) and 27(2)(r) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant-revision petitioner from the petition schedule premises. 3. Petition averments disclose that respondent herein is the landlord of the residential premises situated in the first floor of building No.133/22, Mamulpet, Bengaluru. The same was purchased in the name of the respondent herein and was leased to Sri Megharaj Ji, father of the revision petitioner on 5-1-1968 as the revision petitioner was minor at the time of lease. The said lease was initially for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.130/-. Duration of lease was extended from time to time and the monthly rent was also being enhanced. Upon the death of Sri ...
Tag this Judgment!Thangammal (since deceased) by his L.Rs Vs. The Secretary, Government ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 3-11-2010 passed in M.A. No. 25001 of 2008 whereby the order dated 6-11-2007 passed by the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 ( ˜the Actfor short) is upheld and the petitioner is directed to vacate from the premises in question. 2. The petitioner who originally filed the petition claims to be the wife of late Kadira Vadivelu Pillai. On the death of the petitioner, her L.Rs have been brought on record who are none other than the sons of late Kadira Vadivelu Pillai. The said late Kadira Vadivelu Pillai was the Dharmakartha of Sri Shadakshara Gnana Shiva Subramanya Temple, Kamaraj Road, Bengaluru. The Trustees who were in-charge of the temple have through their communication as at Annexure-R4 made over the temple property and its affairs to the Endowment Board (Muzrai). Pursuant thereto, the Government Order dated 29-10-1986 is issued whereby the templ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhas Marutirao Yadav Vs. Savakka W/O. Yellappa Kanteppanvar
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
:1. : R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE31T DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA RSA NO.100123/2014 (DECLN. & POSSN) BETWEEN SUBHAS MARUTIRAO YADAV AGE:55. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. MAVANUR VILLAGE TQ: HUBLI DIST: DHARWAD. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADV.) AND1 SAVAKKA W/O. YELLAPPA KANTEPPANVAR AGE:75. YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. CHALAVADI ONI KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 023.2. NINGAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA KADAMMAVAR AGE:65. YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. HOMBAL, TQ: GADAD.3. BASAVVA W/O. YELLAPPA KADAMNAVAR AGE ABOUT63YEARS, :2. : OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. HOMBAL-582 204, TQ: GADAG.4. HANAMANTHAPPA S/O. RANGAPPA DODDAMANI AGE:55. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. SHISWINAHALLI, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL S DESAI, ADV. FOR C/R1-R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION100OF C.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED112.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBLI, IN R.A.NO.124/13, AND ETC. THIS RS...
Tag this Judgment!E. Ramamurthy (Deceased) Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
(Prayer: These STRPs. are filed under Section 65(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the Order dated 7.8.2014 passed in STA 3462-3469/2013 on the file of the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bengaluru, dismissing the appeals filed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 r/w Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.) Vineet Saran, J. 1. These revision petitions have been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has upheld the imposition of penalty for non-furnishing of declaration in Form-H under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short the CST Act') to substantiate its claim that certain items in question which were sold for export would be exempted from payment of tax. The assessment period in question is of May, June, July, August, October and November, 2005 as well as February and March-2006. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-E. Ramamurthy, ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Srinivas Vs. The Site Auction Confirmation Committee and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the decision of the R-1 vide proceeding dated 9.1.2015 in so far as site No.14 situated at Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, 4th Block Vide Annexure-G and etc.) 1. Petitioner responded to an e-Auction notification dated 19.11.2014, Annexure-A by making an application for registration and payment of Rs.4,00,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) so as to bid for sites in a public auction to be conducted by Bangalore Development Authority (for short BDA'). The E-auction is said to have been held on 9.12.2014 whence petitioner's bid for site No:14 was accepted and on the conclusion of said auction at 16:00 hours on the same day, in terms of e-auction notification Annexure-A, petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the bid amount within 72 hours therefrom i.e. by 16:00 hours on 12.12.2014. Petitioner did not deposit the amount within the time fixed but did so by making a deposit of Rs.14...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »