Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: karnataka gulbarga Page 8 of about 130 results (0.163 seconds)

Feb 08 2013 (HC)

Mallesh Vs. the State of Karnataka, Represented by Circle Inspector of ...

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 read with Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. praying to acquit the appellant on all charges levelled and framed against him in S.C.No.79/2007, by setting aside the judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and P.O., Fast Track Court-III, Raichur, in S.C.No.79/2007 dated 29.09.2007, impugned herein, and to release the appellant from judicial custody.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The appellant was the accused before the Trial Court in the following background: Lakshmi, the daughter of Pomanna and Shankaramma, had alleged that she along with her parents, were residents of Alkot Tanda, within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, in Devadurga Taluk. The appellant was the resident of A.G. Colony and was related to Lakshmi. A.G Colony was about 2 kms from Alkot Tanda. It is claimed that during July 2006, Lakshmi was aged about 19 and during that time, her parents had gone in search ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2013 (HC)

M.K. ShafiuddIn Vs. Halima Khatoon and Others

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.55/2010 on the file of the Family Judge at Raichur.) The petitioner is said to be the husband of respondent no.1 and respondents 2 and 3 are their children. The petitioner and respondent no.1 are separated. The children are living with respondent no.1. The respondents had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC', for brevity), seeking maintenance in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for herself and a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month for the children, that is respondents 2 and 3, for their maintenance from the date of the petition. The said petition was filed in the year 2010. The petitioner on receiving notice of the same, has appeared therein and has filed his objections. The marriage is admitted and there is no dispute that the children are their own. However, it was alleged by r...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2013 (HC)

Shaheen Khanam, and Others Vs. Mohd. Khaja Patel

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

(Prayer: This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1985, against the judgment dated 20.10.2010 passed in Crl.Misc.No.71/2009 on the file of the District Judge, Family Court at Gulbarga, wherein partly allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner No.1 is entitled to said enhance maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- from respondent from the date of filing the present petition and the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.500/- each from the date of filing the present petition till they attain the age of majority.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has been served and remains unrepresented. There is a delay of 49 days in filing the present petition. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. I.A.3/2012 is taken on record and allowed. 2. The petitioners are the wife and children of the respondent. Apparently, petitioner No.1 is estranged from her husband and is li...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2013 (HC)

The State of Karnataka, by Sho of Shaktinagar Police Station, Represen ...

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State Public Prosecutor for the state praying to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.06.2008 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur, in S.C.No.78/2007, acquitting the accused / respondents for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC.) 1. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused in the following background: The complainant one Muddu Ramulu, a resident of Kolpur village, Manganoor Mandal, Makthal Taluk of Andhra Pradesh, had alleged that the respondents herein are brothers and that the first respondent had married his daughter Tarangini about four years prior to the incident. It transpires that when Tarangini was studying in S.S.L.C., Respondent No.1 had developed a friendship with her and they had on...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2013 (HC)

Ravi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, by Manna-e-khelli Police

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar in Spl.CC (NDPS) No.53/05 and etc.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 2. The appellants were the accused before the trial court, who have suffered a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, for committing an offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act', for brevity). 3. The background to the said sentence being imposed is as follows:- It transpires that the Manna-e-Khelli Police had received credible information on 20th October 2005 at 11 a.m., of ganja being transported from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra and the concerned had gone near the Manna-e-Khelli bus-stand, where they found the...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2013 (HC)

Jyoti Vs. Suryakant

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. 1. This petition is filed for transferring of M.C.No. 20/2012 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Humnabad to Family Court at Gulbarga. 2. Petitioner herein is the wife of respondent. Respondent herein has filed petition for divorce before the Senior Civil Court at Humnabad. Petitioner herein alleges that she being the lady finds it difficult to approach Humnabad Court every now and then, particularly, in view of the fact that she is suffering from lack of finance. According to the petitioner herein, respondent is a practicing Advocate at Gulbarga and is a businessman also; and that earlier, similar petition was filed by the respondent herein in M.C.No.44/2003 at Gulbarga and in the said petition, interim maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month was awarded. However, the respondent herein did not pay the said maintenance, consequent upon which, the petition came to be closed by the Family Court at Gulbarga. According to the petitioner herein, resp...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2013 (HC)

Govind Traders (Dealing in Cotton and Cotton Seeds), Bijapur Vs. Amrut ...

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

1. This is the defendants second appeal against the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below. 2. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of money based on accounts. Suit tame to be decreed by the trial Court and the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed by the first appellate Court. 3. Sri D.P. Ambekr, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the suit itself was not maintainable in view of Section 84 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as APM Act). He further submits that imposition of future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is bad in the eye of law. Following questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the suit was not maintainable? 2. Whether the Courts below are justified in imposing interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit? 4. The point of lack of jurisdiction is not raised by the defendant before the t...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2013 (HC)

Mahima Charan and Others Vs. Kanyakumari and Another

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. This petition is filed praying for quashing the order dated 7.7.2012 passed by the 5th Additional JMFC., Gulbarga in Crl.Misc.No.125/2012. The matter arises under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the complainant, her marriage with the first respondent has taken place on 30.7.2009 in Mantralaya and the said marriage was love marriage. Petitioners 2 to 9 are the relatives of the first petitioner. According to the complainant, the first petitioner has not provided money for maintaining complainant and her child; he has not provided food, clothes, medicine, etc. for complainant and her child and forced the complainant and her child out of the house; he has not paid the rents for rented accommodation of the complainant and that he has disposed of Stridhan property of the complainant. 2. However, vague allegations are made against other petitioners. On going through...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2013 (HC)

Basappa and Others Vs. Rajshree

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 8 in P.C.No. 44/2011 pending on the file of JMFC., Muddebihal. Based on the private complaint lodged by the respondent alleging the offence under Section 494 r/w Section 34 of IPC, process is issued. Said order is called in question in this petition. 2. The complainant alleges that the first petitioner is the husband of the complainant. During the subsistence of marriage between the respondent (complainant) and the first petitioner, the first petitioner allegedly married the second petitioner viz., Basamma. Petitioners 3 to 8 and two others said to have actively participated and assisted and also instigated the second marriage between the first and second petitioners and that therefore the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. 3. During the course of enquiry, the complainant gave her sworn statement. Admittedly, she is not the eye witness to the alleged second marriage. According to the complainant, her uncle Basapp...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2013 (HC)

Dr. Bheemashanker and Others Vs. Tushar Girimath and Others

Court : Karnataka Gulbarga

(Prayer: This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, Initiate and take appropriate action against the accused for their failure to give affect to the verdict dated 12.12.2011 rendered in W.P.No.2311/2008 and 20426/2007 (GM-R/C) and punish them for contempt of this Court.) The learned Single Judge heard and disposed of Writ Petition No.2311/2008 c/w Writ Petition No.20426/2007 on 12th December 2011 with the following order: "W.P. No.2311/2008 is accepted. Annexure-'A' as it relates to notification of Sri Narasimha Saraswathi Datta Maharaja Devasthana (Dattathreya) is quashed. In view of acceptance of W.P. No.2311/2008, the resolution dated 03.12.2007 cannot be sustained. Therefore W.P. Nos.20426/207 is accepted. The resolution dated 03.12.2007 as per Annexure-'A' is quashed." The above order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed in Writ Appeal No.50258/2012. This Contempt Petition is filed alleging disobedience of the aforementioned orders. 2. Sri Su...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //