Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE19h DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.24832 OF2022(GM - POLICE) BETWEEN: MR.KULDEEP ADVOCATE AGED ABOUT23YEARS S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR SHETTY RESIDING AT PUTHILA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001 BY SECRETARY. 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION2REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGLAURU 560 001. 3 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 575 001. 4 . SUTHESH K.P., SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION D.K. DISTRICT 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA / RES...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE10H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.231 OF2014CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.232 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.233 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.234 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.235 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.236 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.237 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.238 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.239 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.240 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.241 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.242 OF20142 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.243 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.244 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.245 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.246 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.247 OF2014CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.248 OF2014BETWEEN: Limited, a Private Limited Company, Represented by its Managing Director, R.Krishnamurthy, Address: Office at 38, Trichy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 16.1.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.150/2013 to 167/2013 by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore and order dated 1.4.2013 passed in C.C.No.660/2009 by the JMFC (V Court), D.K., Mangalore, by allowing this petition, and acquit the petitioners. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 16.1.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.150/2013 to 167/2013 by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore and order dated 1.4.2013 passed in C.C.No.661/2009 by the JMFC (V Court), D.K., Mangalore, by allowing this petition, and acquit the petitioners. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Proced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE10H DAY OF JULY, 2018 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8106/2013 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5358/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5357/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5359/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5393/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5394/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5395/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5396/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5397/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5398/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5399/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5400/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5401/2013, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5360/2013 IN CRL.P NO.8106/2013 BETWEEN:1. Mr. Leo Crasta Managing Director M/s Leo Consumer Products Private Ltd Near Karangalpady Market Karangalpady, Mangalore-575001.2. Mrs. Sylvia Crasta Director M/s Leo Consumer Products Private Ltd Near Karangalpady Market Karangalpady, Mangalore-575001. (By Sri Nataraj.R, Advocate) ... PETITIONERS2AND:1. State of Karnataka Rep. by Inspector of Legal Metrology Mangalore Sub Division Mang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF JULY, 2021 BEFORE THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.69 OF2017C/w CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.70/2017, CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.76/2017. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.96/2017, CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.97/2017, CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.98/2017, CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.105/2017, CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.106/2017, CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.107/2017, CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.110/2017, CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.111/2017, & CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.112/2017 In Crl.R.P.No.69/2017 BETWEEN: Sri. D. Srinivasa Rao Aged about 76 years, S/o. Late Laxminarayan Rao, R/o Quarters No.30/A T.S.W. Colony, Harige, Shivamogga-577 201 Presently residing at Retired employee Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560 022. ..Petitioner (By Sri. Nataraja Ballal, Advocate) AND: State by Enforcement Officer Employees Provident Funds, 1st Cross, Garden Area, Shivamogga Division...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant77; AIR1952Mys77
ORDER1. The petitioner is the first party in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 1942-43, filed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special First Class Magistrate, Madhugiri. The learned Magistrate being unable to decide which of the party was in possession of the property directed under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that attachment to continue and appointed the Amildar, Madhugiri to take possession as the Receiver.2. On 27-6-1946, the respondents presented an application on behalf of the second party members from which this revision petition arises praying that the attachment be withdrawn and the Receiver be directed not to deal with the property. The petitioner objected on the ground that the application is not maintainable as the present respondents were not parties to the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate overruled the objection and ordered that the attachment be withdrawn by acce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Mys274; [1966]36CompCas562b(Kar); 1965CriLJ654; (1965)1MysLJ265
ORDER(1) The petitioner was appointed voluntary liquidator of a company called Rural Commercial Syndicate Ltd., by a special resolution of the Company dated 2nd November 1958. Under S. 551 of the Companies Act of 1956 he had to file statements mentioned in the section with the Registrar of Companies periodically. It appears he was filing such statements regularly until he committed default in statements relating to the period 2-5-1963 to 1-11-1963 which was due to be filed with the Registrar on or before 1-1-1964. After issuing notice to him to rectify the omission, the Registrar instituted criminal prosecution against him before the First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore.(2) The petitioner admitted his default and pleaded guilty, but placed certain circumstances before the Magistrate on the strength of which he prayed that he be pardoned. It also appears that the necessary statement was filed by him after the presentation of the complaint but before the Magistrate came to di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)554; 1998CriLJ2220; ILR1998KAR2296; 1998(3)KarLJ169
ORDER1. This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is made by the petitioner M/s. Shrei International Finance Limited, Madras with its branch office at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'financier company') praying to quash the criminal proceedings in PCR 165 of 1997 pending on the file of the Court of IV Additional C.M.M., Bangalore and also challenging the order dated 9-9-1997 of the learned Magistrate referring the private complaint of respondent 1-M.G. Narayana ('complainant' for short) under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code to the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Byatrayanpura, Bangalore City for investigation and report.2. Respondent 2-Baruva is shown as the General Manager and respondent 3-Mr. Surendra as the Field Officer of A1 Finance Company. They are accused 2 and 3 in the said complaint. Therefore, they are hereinafter referred to as 'A2' and 'A3'. Respondent 4 is impleaded in the petition since the vehicle in question was purchased by him.3. The u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant24; AIR1960Mys24; 1960CriLJ258
ORDER(1) The petitioners are the accused in C. C. 30 of 1957 on the file of the sub Divisional Magistrate of Hospet. Petitioners 1 to 5 have been convicted of an offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25; all the six petitioners have also been convicted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The convictions and sentences have also been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary on appeal by the petitioners.(2) The complainant, who is the 2nd respondent before me, was a tenant under one Raghavendrachar, who is D. W. 1 in the case. It is the complainant's case that he has been in possession for a number of years as tenant under Raghavendrachar. On 20-2-1957 Raghavendrachar executed a sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of the land under the occupation of the complainant. On 22-2-1957, that is two days after the sale, the incid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR3035
Hiremath, J.1. The plaintiffs sued defendants 1 to 3 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession of three items of properties namely Survey No. 40/1, Survey No. 40/2 and Survey No. 40/3 of Kattinahakkal village of Ankola taluk of Uttar Kannada District. While plaintiff-1 claims to be in possession of Survey Nos. 40/1 and 40/3 by virtue of a grant, plaintiff-2 claims to be in possession of Survey No. 40/2, though unauthorisedly that being the Government waste land. However, defendant-1, the present first respondent, filed O.S.83 of 1967 for permanent injunction against them in respect of the same properties and obtained temporary injunction against them on 20-5-1967. This was challenged in a miscellaneous appeal and ultimately the miscellaneous appeal came to be dismissed.2. Thereafter defendant-1 initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by applying to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction alleging interfe...
Tag this Judgment!