Karnataka Court December 1996 Judgments

Gururaja Joshi Vs. Chief Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997CriLJ2830; 1997(2)KarLJ616

ORDER1. The challenge in this writ petition is to a Notification dated 20th of November, 1991 issued by the State Government under Section 9(1) and (4) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 constituting designated Courts and appointing Judges to preside over the same, for trial of offences punishable under the said Act. The facts in brief are as under :- 2. The petitioner claims to have filed a complaint before the designated Court at Raichur under Section 14 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Court referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the Director General of Police on 23-3-1993. A case under the Act was eventually registered on 21st of January 1994, which culminated in the filing of a 'B' report before the designated Court. The petitioner claims to have challenged the said report and while the matter is pending consideration of the designated he f...

C.C.i. and E., Bangalore Vs. Microsign Engineering Products

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(94)ELT308(Kar)

1. The instant appeal is filed by the State challenging judgment dated 22-6-1992 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore in C.C. No. 742/1984 whereby the said court acquitted the accused. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : That the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports being authorised under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 had filed a complaint as against the respondents/accused before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Special Court') for the offences alleged to have been committed by them under Section 120-B read with Section 420 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The complaint against the respondents/accused is that accused No. 1 is a fictitious firm floated by accused No. 2. Accused No. 3 is a businessman of Bombay dealing in licence for iron and steel, accused No. 4 is a commission agent dealing in imports of iron and steel materials and ac...

A. Christian Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR549

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J1. The most question involved in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the Telegraphs Authorities are competent to charge rental of telephone connection for the period during which the same had remained disconnected.2. The power of Telegraph Authority in the above connection is traceable to Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. 1951 (in short 'the Rules'). These Rules have been made under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (in short 'the Act'). The rule reads as under;'Rule 443. DEFAULT OF PAYMENT - If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls (Local and Trunk) or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice. The telephone or telephones or the telex so disconnected may, if the Telegr...

Sri Kempanna and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2002

ORDERA.M. Farooq, J. 1. This is a petition field under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash that part of the investigation in respect of Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. & ST. (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 herein after called as 'the Act' tor short, registered by the Chickkajala Police in Crime No. 89/96.2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this crime petition are that the complainant Ravi kumar lodged a report with the Chickajala police stating that one Munikrishna, who was the deceased in the case was his elder brother. On 5.8.1996 at about 5.30 a.m. his brother deceased Munikrishna had gone to answer call of nature time one Kempanna s/o Muniswamappa and Raja s/o Byregowda, Nanjegowda, Suresha s/o Narayanappa, Manjappa s/o Oni Munishamappa, Jagadish s/o Krishnappa, S.N.Nagaraj s/o Munishamappa, Raja s/o, Gowdara Ramanna and Satish s/o Muninanjappa came there to assault the deceased Munikrishna, accused persons first threw chilly powder on the face of t...

Miss. Vijay Letchumy and Another Vs. Kasturba Medical College, Manipal ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. Common questions of law arise in these two writ petitions which have been heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners are Malaysian Nationals. They were admitted to the first year of M.B.B.S. Course during the academic year 1990-91. While they had yet to complete their course, the marks card of the qualifying examination produced by them at the time of their admission were sent for verification to the Pre-University Education Board at Bangalore. The verification revealed that the petitioners had failed in the qualifying examination but had produced fabricated marks cards with a view to secure admission in the professional course. As many as 12 other candidates were also found to have similarly produced fabricated certificates and secured admission. A direction was accordingly issued by the Director of Pre-University Department to the T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Manipal to cancel the admission of all the 14 students. Theadmissions were accordin...

K.M. Balakrishna Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1946

M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the conviction on the charge of murder recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kodagu in Sessions Case No. 7/1991. The appellant, a carpenter and a resident of Kunjila village was married to deceased Janaki a few years prior to the incident. His brother Chengappa was married to Janaki's sister and these two brothers along with their wives originally resided together at Kunjila in the house of their father. However, after some time, the brothers decided to stay separately and Chengappa and his wife were residing in another house at a short distance therefrom. Deceased Janaki was supposed to have been unduly close to the brother Chengappa which was one of the possible reasons for the brothers falling out and the record indicates that there was a lot of resentment which ended up in quarrels and hostility between the accused and Janaki as the husband had strongly disapproved of the wife's conduct. Not only this, the husband had left the ...

K.B. Santosh and ors. Vs. SebastIn Joseph and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2027

ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. Cr.P. 1829/1992 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding in CC. No. 1546/92 (P.C. No. 66/92) on the file of the learned Addl. Munsiff and JMFC., Virajpet. The operative portion of the order reads :In the result, cognizance for the offences under Section 427, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. is taken against all the accused. Issue S/S to the accused. Call on 8.1.1993'.2. Similarly, Cr. P. 572/93 is also filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. questioning the order passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC., Athni, in C.C. No. 111/93 (P.C. No. 35/93). The operative portion of the order reads as under :'Heard Complainant's counsel. Cognizance is taken of the offences under Section 504, 323 and 506 IPC. against the accused. Register and issue 66 to accused Call on 1/4.'3. Since common question is involved in these two petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.In both the cases these impugned orders came to be passed after recording the sworn statement of the ...

Vinod and Others Vs. Pandurang and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1997Kant144; ILR1997KAR1383; 1997(2)KarLJ511

ORDER1. The petitioners in this petition are defendants-1 and 2 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsiff at Hubli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Munsiff') and this revision petition is presented by them aggrieved by the order dated 11th July, 1996, passed on I.A.II in O.S.No. 309/1996, filed by the 1st respondent seeking permission to file the suit in a representative capacity under O. 1, R. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. Sri Chaitanya Hegade, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the order passed by the Munsiff is illegal and liable to be set aside by this Court as the said order came to be passed in disregard of the provisions of O. 1, R. 8 read with O. 7, sub-rule (2) of R. 4 of the Code. According to Sri Hegade, the provisions of O. 1, R. 8 and O. 7, sub-rule (2) of R. 4 of the Code are mandatory in nature and the order passed in disregard of the said provisions seriously affect the jurisdiction of the ...

M/s. Bombay Tyres International Ltd., Bombay and another Vs. K.S. Prak ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1997Kant311; ILR1997KAR111; 1997(2)KarLJ1

ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J.1. This revisionis by the tenant in a proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The case is referred to a Full Bench mainly for determining the question as to whether during the subsistence of contractual tenancy, is it open to a landlord to resort to proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for evicting the tenant on satisfying any of the grounds mentioned in S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. A Full Bench of this Court in Sri Ramakrishna Theatres Ltd. v. General Investments and Commercial Corporation. Ltd., : AIR1993Kant90 held that the landlord is not entitled to evict a tenant even on satisfying the conditions mentioned in S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, so long as the contractual tenancy subsists. This Full Bench decision was later considered by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Syeda Vajhiunnissa Begum, ILR (1994) Kant 1659. One of the questions to be conside...

Karnataka Light Metal Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income T ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR774; [1997]225ITR947(KAR); [1997]225ITR947(Karn)

Rajendra Babu, J. 1. In this reference arising under s. 256(2) of the IT Act three questions have been referred for our opinion and they are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant was not entitled to set off or carry forward business loss of the earlier years against the income for the relevant year 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business in which the loss was originally sustained had been discontinued in 1975 3. Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business carried on by the applicant during the relevant year was a different one ?' 2. The assessee is a company and was engaged in the job work of flattening of wires supplied by M/s Karnataka Steel & Wire Products Ltd. (KSWP). The assessee has taken on lease the premises belonging to M/s Karnataka Steel & Wire Products Ltd., and set up its own ...