Karnataka Court August 1995 Judgments

S.G. Gundegowda Alias Moganna Vs. State by Yealur Police, Hassan Distr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1996CriLJ852; ILR1995KAR3525; 1996(1)KarLJ150

Mirdhe, J. 1. This appeal (Cr.A. 501/93) is preferred by the appellant, who was the sole accused before the trial court against the judgment dated 2nd November, 1993 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan, in S.C. No. 5/92 convicting the appellant - accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to death. The appellant - accused is also convicted for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and the learned trial Judge ordered that the sentence of R.I. for three months awarded to the appellant for the offence under Arms Act shall merge in the death sentence imposed on the appellant-accused. 2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan, has also made a reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence awarded by him to the appellant - accused. 3. Since both these matters are connected with each other, we have heard them together and we are passing this common Jud...

State of Karnataka Vs. Adiveppa Ningappa Ranekkanavar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR2782; 1995(6)KarLJ1

Mirdhe, J.This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State - appellant against the judgment dated 30.8.94 passed by the II Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Gadag in S.C. 59/94 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. on the ground that the case is compromised.2. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri A.B. Patil for the State - appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent - accused fully and perused the records of the case.3. The respondent-accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. The J.M.F.C. has acquitted the accused on the ground that the case is compromised and no one would support the prosecution case. From the order it is apparent that he knows that the offence alleged by the complainant against the respondent is not compoundable. Inspite of that he has granted permission to compromise the matter. We think that the J.M.F.C. should not have exercised the powers not vested in him b...

Jayamma (Smt.) Vs. General Manager (Personnel), Karnataka Silk Industr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2407]; 1996(2)KarLJ373

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. Petitioner who is a worker with the respondent-Corporation has challenged an order dated 8-5-1995 whereby she has been transferred from Channapatna to Kanakapura. The main contention raised is that the petitioner is a member of the Executive Committee of the Union which represents the rights of 550 workers and that since she had raised certain issues and demands of behalf of the workers and since she is an active worker of the union that the management has hit back at her and transferred her out of Channapatna. Petitioner's learned Advocate has relied on the charter of demands and certain other documents that are annexed to the petition and he submits that because of the fact that the management did not concede these demands, that the management has now taken to conciliation. He states that this is the main reason why the petitioner has been victimised. He also submits that even though there is no specific provision or agreement between the management and the ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR2706

M.L. Pendse, C.J.1. This batch of Appeals raises the question of correct interpretation of Proviso (ii) of order dated 22nd May, 1984 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Food & Civil Supplies in exercise of powers conferred by Clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966. The learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment dated February 25, 1991 disposed of all the Writ Petitions by relying upon the previous Decision of this Court reported in GANESHMAL JAIN S. AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the appellant The respondents in all these Appeals are recognised dealers under Sugar (Control) Order and are wholesalers dealing in sugar and khandasari. Sugar being an essential commodity the production, prices, movement and distribution is required to be regularised in the interest of their availability at fair-price to the consumer. The Government of India reviews the sugar polic...

Chairman, Cbec and ors. Vs. Davangere Cotton Mills

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1996(63)LC244(Karnataka); ILR1995KAR2690; 1995(5)KarLJ277

1. These two cross-appeals are directed against the order dated March 25, 1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17545/86 and can be conveniently disposed of by this judgment. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge quashed the demand notice dated May 2, 1986 served by the Superintendent of Central Excise upon M/s the Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mills' for the sake of brevity). The learned Single Judge also directed the Superintendent to refund the sum of Rs. 1,69,75,742.79 to the Mills. The learned Judge further directed the department to examine whether any further amount is required to be refunded in accordance with the claim made by the Mills. The learned Judge declined to award interest on the amount of refund.2. The facts which give rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute and are required to be set out to appreciate the grievance made in the two appeals.M/s Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. is a composite mill and manuf...

B.S. Ghosh Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

1. This writ petition filed by the ex-Assistant Personnel Officer of B.E.L. Ltd. raises certain interesting facets of the law relating the finality of an employee's date of birth as reflected in the company's records. The law with regard to this aspect of the matter is now reasonably well defined and has been crystalised to a position whereby the Courts have held that it will not he permissible to permit an alteration of the date of birth of an employee at a point of time when he is on the verge of his service coming to an end. The important principle underlying this decision is that the employment was secured on the basis of a clear-cut representation with regard to the date of birth which employment could possibly not have been secured by the petitioner for a variety of reasons had that date been different. It is, therefore, that the Courts have held that it would be impermissible to plead mistakes or a host of other reasons and ask for variation and that an employee will be pinned d...

K. Shivaram, Xiii Addl. Judge Vs. Vimala, Proprietrix and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1996CriLJ3353; ILR1995KAR2735; 1995(5)KarLJ37

ORDER1. This is a reference made under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (here in after wards referred to as 'the Act') by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore relating to a pending judicial proceeding in H.R.C. No. 10233/94 on the file of his Court. 2. The said eviction petition had been filed by one Misrilal Sankethi against the respondent Manohar in respect of a shop. In that proceeding an application I.A.I. came to be filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by one Vimala represented by an Advocate Sri. R. Krishnoji Rao for impleading herself as a co-respondent claiming that she is the tenant in possession of the petition schedule shop. That application came to be dismissed. Thereafter the parties to the petition filed a compromise petition wherein the respondent agreed to vacate the shop if 15 days time is given, and the matter was kept for passing orders on the compromise petition. 3. At that stage the applicant in I. A. I. Vimala,...

Mahadevaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1996CriLJ2677; ILR1996KAR447; 1996(2)KarLJ269

ORDER1. The short point that arises for decision in this writ petition is the question as to whether the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner and pending before the trial Court should be quashed on the ground of abnormal delay. The brief facts are that the petitioner was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore. It is alleged that between June and December, 1986, he was instrumental in an attempt to cheat the Department of a sum of Rs. 32,548/- by making it appear that one Sri B. A. Achaiah had made an application for final withdrawal of his provident fund accumulations and that the petitioner had got it sanctioned through false notings and representations. According to the charge-sheet filed, there is a further allegation that a class-IV staff by the name of Chaluvaiah had colluded with the petitioners in some sort of cover up action for purposes of ensuring that the evidence of these crimes was not trace...

Harish Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR499; 1996(2)KarLJ451

ORDERSadashiva, J. 1. The petitioners have presented the first set of Writ Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to quash Notifications dated 15.3.1995 and 13.3.1995 produced at Annexures 'D' to 'H' in the said Writ Petitions. Similarly Notification dated 13.3.1995 produced at Annexure 'A' in W.P.No. 9367/95, Notification dated 13.3.1995 produced at Annexure 'F' in W.P.No. 9893/95, Notification dated 11.3.1995 produced at Annexure 'F' in W.P.No. 8968/95, Notification dated 11.3.1995 produced at Annexure 'F' in W.P.No. 13174/95 and Notifications dated 15.3.1995, 13.3.1995 and 13.3.1995 produced at Annexures 'B', 'C' and 'D' in W.P.Nos. 11746-748 of 1995 are also sought to be quashed.2. The petitioners in all these Petitions except the petitioner in W.P.No. 13174/95, are the students studying in various classes/semesters in the University of Agricultural Sciences for various courses. The petitioner in W.P.No. 13174/95 has completed his under-Graduate course in Bachelor in Veterinary Science...

The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarga Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant110; ILR1995KAR2732; 1996(1)KarLJ76

1. We have heard the learned Advocate who appears in favour of the cross-objectors as also the learned Government Pleader who represents the respondents. The first point that has been canvassed before us is with regard to the aspect of maintainability of these cross-objections because of the peculiar facts relating to the present .appeal. Admittedly, the LAO had determined the market value of the lands in question at Rs. 19,090/- per acre. The reference was made to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation which was ultimately enhanced to Rs. 1,03,000/- per acre. The State had preferred M.F.A. No. 2107 of 1994 contending that the enhancement was excessive and an earlier Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal in question. The real question is as to whether the cross-objections would survive in these circumstances. One contention that is invariably raised on behalf of the acquiring authorities is that where the High Court has dismissed the main appeal, that cross-objections which...