Karnataka Court February 1993 Judgments
K. Ramesh Babu Vs. State of Karnataka by the Station House Officer, Gi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)427; 1994CriLJ358; 1993(2)KarLJ569
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to reverse or set aside the order dated 30-10-91 passed in C.C. No. 5125/91 directing the registration of a case against him under S. 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner while he was in charge of Girinagar Police Station as Sub-Inspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No. 1212/90 against one Venkatesh for an offence under S. 324, IPC. Subsequently a charge-sheet was also filed against the said Venkatesh in C.C. No. 3783/90 on the file of the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 3. The petitioner was one of the witness in the said case. The trial Court issued witness summons through a police constable Basavaraj for service who was then attached to Girinagar Police Station. He returned the said summons to the Court with an endorsement that the petitioner refused to receive the same. Thereupon the learned magistrate ordered registration of a case against the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Kariyappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1323; 1993(2)KarLJ105
ORDERK.A. Swami, Ag. C.J 1. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 1.6.1992 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.2038/86 (LA). The Writ Appeal was filed on 23rd January 1993. Therefore, the office has raised an objection that the Appeal is barred by time, in the light of the provisions contained in Article 117 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. 2. The appellant has stated before the Registry that the appeal preferred under Section 4 of the High Court Act being the continuation of the remedy sought in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not governed by the provisions contained in Article 117 of the Limitation Act, because the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not a civil proceeding. Hence, the office has posted the matter before the Court for consideration. 3. Sri M.R.Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1317; 1993(1)KarLJ653
K.A.Swami, Ag. C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal is -preferred against the Order dated 19th January 1993 passed by the learned single Judge, in Writ Petition No.26242/92. The learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition. Therefore the petitioner has come up in this Appeal. 2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner-appellant sought for a declaration that the judgment and award passed in L.A.C.No.90/80, dated 21.9.1992 and 27.9.1982 respectively, by the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, was null and void. The petitioner has also sought for a further declaration that the Judgment and Award passed by a Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.1732/1982 c/w 314 of 1982, dated 19th November 1990 and 18th February 1991 respectively, modifying the award passed by the Civil Judge and enhancing the compensation amount are null and void. The petitioner has also sought for further direction to the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, to take up L.A.C.No.90/80 and to decide the same afresh after affording an opportunity to...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh @ Seena Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1218; 1992(2)KarLJ16
R. Ramakrishna, J.1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No. 17 of 1988 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. Four other persons were arraigned as Accused Nos.2 to 5. The charge was one under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the trial, Accused No. 3 Narayanappa was absconding. Therefore, the trial proceeded against the appellant and three other accused.2. The trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of the alleged recovery made on his voluntary statement Ex.P.13. The article recovered was, a gold ingot from P.W.2 Vishwanath, as according to the prosecution, the Gold chain which was sold to P.W.2 was melted and converted into ingot. The other three accused were acquitted as the prosecution has not proved their involvement in this offence.3. Admittedly, the alleged dacoits were not identified by P.W.3 -Girijamma and P.W.5 - Ramakrishnaiah the wife and husband respectively. It is alleged when they were proceeding t...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishnappa Vs. Chief Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR814; 1993(1)KarLJ583
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioners in W.P.No.38636/92 have sought for quashing the meeting notice dated 7th December, 1992-Annexure-A issued by the first respondent and to direct respondent No.1 not to hold the Meeting pursuant to the said notice.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to W.P.No.38636/92 are:The petitioners are the President and Vice-President of the Vijayapura Town Municipal Council respectively and respondent No.1 is the Chief Officer of the said Municipal Council. The petitioners were elected as the President and Vice-President on 25th May, 1990.The petitioners have-challenged the Special Meeting convened by the first respondent on 19.12.1992 as per Annexure-A to move vote of no confidence against them, contending that notice-Annexure-A issued by the first respondent is without authority of law. It is stated that no notice as required under law for the purpose of convening a Special Meeting for the purpose of moving a no confidence was given by the members to th...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore University Vs. Dr. C. Kusumakara Hebbar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR827; 1993(1)KarLJ569
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J.1. The Appeals are preferred against the order dated 7.10.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.28080 to 28097/1991; 2340 to 2342/1992, 7797 to 7798/1992 and 7849/1992. Though the appellant has paid one set of Court Fee, it is submitted by Sri P.Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for the appellant that the deficit Court fee of Rs.2300/- will be paid within a week. This submission is placed on record and the Appeals are treated as appeals against the Interim Orders passed in the aforesaid 24 Writ Petitions, and consequently, this Judgment will dispose of 24 Writ Appeals.2. Before considering the validity of the interim order, there is one another aspect of the matter which requires to be disposed of.3. During the pendency of the above Writ Appeals, the petitioner in W.P.No. 28091/1991 - B.Udya - has been regularly appointed. Therefore, his grievance does not survive. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P.No. 28093/91 - Dr. V.M. Jali; W.P.No. 28096/91 - K. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: 1993(43)ECC40; 1993LC531(Karnataka); 1993(67)ELT276(Kar); ILR1993KAR1150; 1993(2)KarLJ84
K.A. Swami, Acting C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3-2-19993 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21339 of 1989 on the interlocutory application filed by the respondents for extension of time. The learned Single Judge has allowed the application and extended the time by another two weeks from the date of the order. The order of the learned Single Judge reads thus : 'This Court had passed an order on 13-12-1990 setting aside the order made by the Collector and remanded the matter to him to make fresh order in accordance with law with certain directions as to the proceedings within a period of three months from 13-12-1990. Inasmuch as the respondent could not make such an order within that time, another application was made for extension of time and that application was allowed. It is now submitted that as the respondent could not have passed an order within that period also for the reasons set out in I. A. No. I and in the affidavit in support ...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i.C Vs. Nirmala Chemical Industries and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: I(1993)ACC614; ILR1993KAR1244; 1993(1)KarLJ451; (1993)IILLJ308Kant
1. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated January 22, 1992, passed on Issue No. 4 in O.S. No. 679 of 1988 by the Third Additional Munsiff at Hubli, as to civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which will have to be decided on adducing evidence, along with other issues but not as a preliminary issue. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner is the Employee's State Insurance Corporation. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suite against the Employee's State Insurance Corporation- defendant praying that the Employees' State Insurance Act is no applicable to their factory and sought a relief of injunction against the E.S.I. Corporation restraining them from taking any action against the plaintiff. It is contended by the plaintiff that only 19 employees are working from the starting of the factory and the Employees' State Insurance Act will be made applicable only when 20 or more persons are employed. The petitioner-defendant filed the written statement and the...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Younus Ali Vs. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1252; 1993(1)KarLJ639
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. In these Writ Petitions the petitioners at the time of filing the Writ Petitions were working as Trained Graduate Teachers, Post Graduate Teachers and Primary Teachers in the 1st respondent's institutions which are run by the Central Board of School Education an autonomous body controlled by the Union of India. They sought for the following reliefs:'Wherefore the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (i) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus of any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to regularise the services of petitioners from the date of their initial appointments, with all consequential benefits; (ii) direct the respondents to pay salary and allowances on par with teachers appointed on regular basis from the date of their initial appointments so long they continue their service; (iii) grant such other further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.' The case of the petitioners is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Agro Service Centre Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1993
Reported in: [1993]90STC401(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. These appeals by the assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short) involve the question whether 'lime' is an item falling under chemicals vide entry 79 of the Second Schedule or whether it is a pesticide falling under entry 117 of the Second Schedule. The question arose in respect of the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. 2. The Revenue contended that 'lime' is a chemical under entry 79 of the Second Schedule which refers to chemicals of all kinds. This contention was accepted in the order made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the proceedings initiated by him under section 22A of the Act. The assessing authority has accepted the contention of the assessee that the article in question was sold by the assessee to coffee estate who purchased the same as pesticide. 3. Sri Ramabhadran, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that the meaning attributable to a word or phrase in an entry of this sort is the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »