Court : Karnataka
..... anything attached to tribes and other the earth; traditional forest dwellers (recognition of forest rights) act, 2006 (central act 2 of 2007) 2. section 9(3): in respect in section 9 of act of an alleged act of land 38/2014, 443 grabbing or the (i) for sub-section (3), the determination of following shall be questions of title and substituted, namely- ownership to ..... than one (1) year and which may extend upto 3 years and with fine upto rs.25,000/- for contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 4. 27.5 section 5 of the klgp act-2011 specifically contemplates for levy of penalty for other offences in connection with land grabbing and clauses (a) to (e) would ..... limited. 22.w.p. no.16633/2004 (d.d.11.03.2005): mohd. siddiq ali khan vs. shahsun finance limited. 23.1997 scc online ap268 j.v. sarma and others vs. special court under a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982, hyd. and others. 24.(2011) 3 scc351 harshendra kumar d vs. redbatilata koley and others. 36425.civil .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... anything attached to tribes and other the earth; traditional forest dwellers (recognition of forest rights) act, 2006 (central act 2 of 2007) 2. section 9(3): in respect in section 9 of act of an alleged act of land 38/2014, 443 grabbing or the (i) for sub-section (3), the determination of following shall be questions of title and substituted, namely- ownership to ..... than one (1) year and which may extend upto 3 years and with fine upto rs.25,000/- for contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 4. 27.5 section 5 of the klgp act-2011 specifically contemplates for levy of penalty for other offences in connection with land grabbing and clauses (a) to (e) would ..... limited. 22.w.p. no.16633/2004 (d.d.11.03.2005): mohd. siddiq ali khan vs. shahsun finance limited. 23.1997 scc online ap268 j.v. sarma and others vs. special court under a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982, hyd. and others. 24.(2011) 3 scc351 harshendra kumar d vs. redbatilata koley and others. 36425.civil .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... no.34, bangalore-560 040. respondents (by sri.p. shivakumar, advocate) this r.p.f.c. is filed under section 19(4) of the family court act, 1984 against the judgment dated 12.11.2013 passed in crl. misc. no.381/2007 on the file of the i additional principal judge, family court, bangalore, partly allowing the petition filed under ..... section 125 of cr.p.c. this r.p.f.c. coming on for orders through video conferencing/physical hearing ..... respondent no.1 (wife) was the complainant, the present petitioner (husband) was convicted for the alleged offence punishable under section 498a of rpfc no.136/2013 24 indian penal code and under section 4 of the dowry prohibition act, and his appeal in criminal appeal no.839/2011 is said to be pending adjudication, which means, at first instance .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... same in the parties 9 organized by accused no.5. it is the case of prosecution that the accused/petitioner has committed offences punishable under section 27a of the ndps act and sections 201 and 204 of ipc.9. it is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2020 and initially after his ..... of accused nos.4 to 6 and therefore, they were also arrested. he contends that the petitioner and others were financing accused nos.3 to 5 for trafficking of drugs and narcotic substances and also consumption of said contraband in the parties organized by accused no.5. the ..... [rupees one crore fifty lakhs only].. considering the high value of the substances seized, it was necessary to find out if there are other persons involved in financing and trafficking of illicit drugs and narcotic substances. therefore, charge- 6 sheet was filed keeping open further investigation. he contends that the further investigation revealed the involvement .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... wall constructed by the plaintiffs is by way of encroachment and defendants 2 and 3 have rightly demolished the compound wall by exercising power contemplated under section 321 of kmc act.45. the said application is strongly resisted by the plaintiffs' counsel. the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would vehemently contend before this court ..... recorded by the learned judge while examining additional issue no.1 is one without jurisdiction and the same is contrary to provisions of section 61(1) of the karnataka land revenue act, 1961. section 81 61(2)(e)(ii) bars jurisdiction of the civil courts in adjudicating the correctness of the order passed under the provisions of ..... 2 and 3 have proceeded in accordance with law and the demolition of the compound wall is strictly in 42 consonance with the procedures contemplated under section 321 of kmc act. he would further submit that the plaintiffs do not have any semblance of right beyond 77 ft. and the plaint b schedule property is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... justified in allowing the quashing petitions by invoking its power under s.482, cr.p.c. in a case pertaining to an offence under section 138 and section 141 of the act, the law requires that the complaint must contain a specific averment that the director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct ..... by the petitioner/accused.18. in this backdrop of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to refer to section 142 of the ni act, 1881. this section deals with cognizance of offences, which reads thus: 142. cognizance of offences.-- notwithstanding anything contained in the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 ..... complainant and he failed to pay the amount due to the complainant, despite of notice issued. subsequently, after following of the requisite condition under section 138 of n.i.act, the complainant initiated private complaint as referred above before the court of civil judge and jmfc, kushalnagar.8. subsequent to initiation of the criminal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... state government:16. the learned senior counsel briefly replied to the submissions of the learned advocate general. he reiterated that the rule making power under section 15 of the said act of 1957 cannot be extended for regulating transportation of legally excavated minerals in other states. based on the decision of the apex court in the case ..... can be - 14 - exercised only to make a plenary law and not for exercising power of delegated legislation. he pointed out that neither section 15 nor section 23-c of the said act of 1957 permit the state government to levy the fees for recovering the expenses relating to setting up of infrastructure for checking illegal transportation.7. ..... in its statement of objections. he submitted that the impugned rule is not covered by the legislative power of the state either under section 15 or under section 23-c of the said act of 1957.6. the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the power of the state government to make a law .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... state government:16. the learned senior counsel briefly replied to the submissions of the learned advocate general. he reiterated that the rule making power under section 15 of the said act of 1957 cannot be extended for regulating transportation of legally excavated minerals in other states. based on the decision of the apex court in the case ..... can be - 14 - exercised only to make a plenary law and not for exercising power of delegated legislation. he pointed out that neither section 15 nor section 23-c of the said act of 1957 permit the state government to levy the fees for recovering the expenses relating to setting up of infrastructure for checking illegal transportation.7. ..... in its statement of objections. he submitted that the impugned rule is not covered by the legislative power of the state either under section 15 or under section 23-c of the said act of 1957.6. the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the power of the state government to make a law .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... the complainant. inspite several documents are produced and the accused has admitted the cheque, the trial judge ought to have drawn the presumption under section 139 of the negotiable instruments act ( n.i. act for short). the reasoning given by the trial court with regard to the existence of the liability is erroneous. the defence taken by the ..... the complainant is a central government undertaking and had entered into a memorandum of understanding ( mou for short) on 10.03.2004 with accused no.2 to finance accused no.1 company for procurement of iron ore to the tune of rs.11.86 crores and the complainant would fund 80% of the estimated cost ..... day, the court pronounced the following: judgment these appeals are filed challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 20.08.2011 passed in c.c.nos.14692/2007, 17140/2007 and 14691/2007 respectively, on the file of the xx additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bengaluru.2. all the three appeals are taken up together since the complainant and the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... the complainant. inspite several documents are produced and the accused has admitted the cheque, the trial judge ought to have drawn the presumption under section 139 of the negotiable instruments act ( n.i. act for short). the reasoning given by the trial court with regard to the existence of the liability is erroneous. the defence taken by the ..... the complainant is a central government undertaking and had entered into a memorandum of understanding ( mou for short) on 10.03.2004 with accused no.2 to finance accused no.1 company for procurement of iron ore to the tune of rs.11.86 crores and the complainant would fund 80% of the estimated cost ..... day, the court pronounced the following: judgment these appeals are filed challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 20.08.2011 passed in c.c.nos.14692/2007, 17140/2007 and 14691/2007 respectively, on the file of the xx additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bengaluru.2. all the three appeals are taken up together since the complainant and the .....
Tag this Judgment!