.....maltreated by the appellant rather he behaved with her in a most decent manner. he never touched her, beat her or troubled her in any manner.8. the fact that the appellant had known the pw2 since 1993 when he first visited her house in context with a marriage proposal leaves no doubt that both of them were known to each other and used to meet despite the fact that their marriage proposal was turned down. the appellant had been visiting her house though he never used to telephone her or write 7 letters to her. in short, they were not only known to each other, but they had some kind of friendship or liking for each other to which there was apparently no objection from the other family members.9. it may be worth noting that there is no evidence on record to prove that the mother of the pw2 was in fact hospitalised in the nursing home. the absence of such evidence casts a doubt on the story that pw2 was kidnapped while going to the nursing home. her statement compels the court to draw a legitimate inference that as she had known appellant, she herself may have managed to elope with him and it is for this reason that the appellant never misbehaved with her or took advantage of her.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....guilty of the offence on the basis of appreciation of evidence. he submits that no perversity could be noticed in the concurrent findings of fact.8. the conviction by the trial court and the high court is primarily on the basis of evidence of narayanappa (pw1).9. narayanappa (pw1), in his evidence, has stated about the deceased’s previous enmity with the accused persons in the year 2002, wherein the deceased and his wife radha (pw3) had gotten injured after a scuffle between the parties. pw1 also stated that the trial with regard to that incident was ongoing in the judicial magistrate court, hosur. pw1 further stated that on 14th september 2004 at around 09:45 hours, he and his deceased brother were riding on a tvs50motor vehicle. when they were riding towards ms nursery farm, accused no.1 – nagaraja reddy, accused no.2 – nagi reddy, accused no.3 – sridhar reddy, accused no.4 – krishna reddy and accused no.7 5 – ranganatha reddy, stopped them by brandishing harvest knives and then threw chili powder in their eyes. he stated that accused no.1 – present appellant, stabbed the deceased with a harvest knife, due to which the deceased rajappa fell down......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....- 5 - wp no.101517 of 2023 objections but not an opportunity of hearing. hence, on the short point, the writ petition is liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to respondent no.3 to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate order. order (i) the writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 passed in order no.27/2022-23 by respondent no.3 under section 130 of the cgst act, and mov-11 (vide annexure-h) is hereby set aside. (iii) the matter stands remanded to respondent no.3 with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.-. 6 - wp no.101517 of 2023 (iv) the petitioner shall appear before respondent no.3 on 10.04.2023 without further notice. (v) in view of allowing of the writ petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed off. sd/- judge vnp* list no.:2. sl no.:1.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and sri m. vinod kumar, learned additional government advocate appearing for the respondents. 33. facts in brief, that lead the petitioner to this court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- the petitioner is a resident of kunigal taluk. no other issue regarding his residence need be gone into. the petitioner gets embroiled in several criminal cases. the cases pending against the petitioner as on date are (i) crime no.108 of 2019 which comes to be registered on 26-06-2019 for offence punishable under section 87 of the karnataka police act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’ for short) and the police having filed the charge sheet in the said case, it is pending before the senior civil judge and jmfc at kunigal in c.c.no.3697 of 2022. (ii) the second crime that is registered against the petitioner in crime no.24 of 2020 on 01-03-2020 is again for offences punishable under section 87 of the act. the police have filed a charge sheet in respect of the said crime in c.c.no.3610 of 2022 before the same court. (iii) the third crime that is registered against the petitioner is in crime.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the following: judgment this appeal is filed by the owner of the luggage carrier auto rickshaw, questioning the liability fixed on him.2. brief facts: on 09.06.2009, deceased hanumanthappa was transporting the goods belonging to his brother-ramu from ripponpete towards nagavalli in a bajaj auto bearing registration no.ka-15/5607 on kargal-bhatkal - pwd tar road. at that time, the driver of the said luggage auto drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner near channakalluhole and the said auto rickshaw was capsized and fallen to the ditch. hanumanthappa sustained injuries on his left fore head, right head, nose and other parts of the body. immediately, he was shifted to the venlock hospital, bangalore, but unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries on 11.06.2009 in the hospital. therefore, the - 4 - mfa no.5699 of 2011 claimants of the deceased have filed claim petition seeking compensation.3. learned counsel for the appellant-owner submitted that the deceased was traveling in the luggage goods carrier auto rickshaw as an authorized representatives of the goods from ripponpet to nagavalli and in the meanwhile, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....seeking discharge for the offence punishable under section 304 part ii of indian penal code (for short ‘ipc’).2. brief and relevant of facts of the case are as under : that on ummer sab s/o khalandar sab lodged a compliant on 20.01.2013 before tarikere town police station alleging, that on 20.01.2013, by loading the vegetable in his mahidra maximo motor vehicle bearing reg.no.ka-18/a-8799 was moving towards shimogga along with gangadharappa on kadur-birur road at about 7.30 p.m. when he was so moving within the jurisdiction of bettadahalli village at about 3 8.30 p.m., the driver of a lorry bearing reg.no.ka-04/a- 8166 by driving his lorry in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the mahindra maximo vehicle from behind. because of this impact, the inamate of the mahindra maximo gangadharappa sustained head injury and the vehicle of the complainant was damaged. it is alleged that, the said driver of the lorry did not stop the lorry. complainant followed the said lorry along with one jafar for about two kilometers. when he was so following near ajjampur cross near shaneshwar temple, the said lorry driver was driving the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....be referred to as the son; 2nd petitioner as mother/wife and sri selvakumar balasubramanian as the father/husband.2. shorn of unnecessary details, facts germane for a consideration of the lis, are as follows:- the 2nd petitioner/wife gets married to one sri selvakumar balasubramanian/husband on 4-11-2005. both the husband and wife were indian citizens, residing in india. from the wedlock a son is born on 5-03-2008 in india – the 1st petitioner. it appears 5 that the husband decides to relocate to canada owing to his avocation in the year 2011. the wife joined him at canada along with the son. in the year 2012 the father returns to bangalore with the son and hands over custody of the son to the parents of the wife i.e., the maternal grandparents of the child. it is the averment in the petition that after handing over the child to the grandparents, the husband lost complete touch with the family and various modes of contacting the husband have failed and he is inaccessible and untraceable even to this day. the mother continued to stay, pursuing her studies, in canada while the son continued to stay with the grandparents in india.3. in the year 2015 precisely on 21-02-2015, on.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....302, 120(b) & 34 of ipc pending before the file of the lxv addl. city civil & sessions judge, bengaluru (cch-66) in the interest of justice.3. brief facts of the case are as under: a complaint came to be lodged by smt. christina.p w/o george in kumaraswamy layout police station which was registered in cr.no.216/2021 on 20.08.2021 for the offences punishable under section 302 and 201 of ipc, initially against the unknown person.-. 3 - crl.p no.10586 of 2022 4. gist of the complaint averments reveal that christina.p is the relative of smt. premalatha and her husband shantharaju. premalatha and shantharaju were residing in house bearing no.236, 2nd main, harsha school road, harsha layout, kashinagar, yelachenahalli, bengaluru city. shantharaju retired as a mechanic from in bmtc about 18 years earlier and was living with his wife and they had no children of their own and as such they have adopted one girl by name harshitha @ baby. she used to often visit the house of premalatha and shantharaju.5. when the matter stood thus, on 20.08.2021 at about 2.30 p.m., shobha one of the tenants of shantharaju called the mother-in-law of the complainant by name asha and told that somebody had.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for the period for which the erstwhile individual srikant mantri has paid to the board cannot be converted to the corporate entity mfl.2. the brief facts of the case culled out are that one srikant mantri became a member of the calcutta stock exchange(hereinafter being referred to as the “cse”) and was granted registration as a stock broker on 30th november, 1992. sometime in the year 1997, he decided to transfer his membership card of cse in favour of mantri finance ltd.the appellant herein(hereinafter being referred to as the “company”). it is not in 2 dispute that the company was registered with the registrar of companies, calcutta on 27th december, 1998 under the name and style of ushagram properties and finance ltd. later, it changed its name to mantri finance ltd. on 13th november, 1992. the company had started the business of stock broking in 1995 and became a member of nse and thereafter sought registration with the board as a stock broker and obtained membership of nse as a stock broker on 17th october, 1995. thereafter, when the membership card of srikant mantri was transferred in the name of the company, the latter became a member of cse and was registered.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for anticipatory bail is opposed vehemently by the learned additional solicitor general. but in our considered view there are at least three factors which tilt the balance in favour of the appellants herein. they are:- (i) admittedly, the cbi did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of filing of fir) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the final report). therefore, it is 4 difficult to accept the contention that at this stage the custody of the appellants may be required; (ii) in the reply/counter filed before the high court, the cbi had taken a categorical stand that the court had merely issued summons and not warrant for the appearance of the accused. in the case of shri deepak gupta, cbi had taken a stand before the special court that “the presence of the accused is not required for the investigation but it is certainly required for trial” and that therefore he needs to be present. therefore, all that the cbi wanted was the presence of the accused before the trial court to face trial. in such circumstances, to oppose the anticipatory bail request at this stage may not be proper; and (iii).....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT