Karnataka Court February 1998 Judgments
State by Police Sub-inspector, Jamkhandi, Bijapur District Vs. Shivapp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)KarLJ422
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal assailing the acquittal of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 as also for enhancement of the punishment awarded to original accused No. 3. This Court has dismissed the State appeal as against A-1 and 2 and consequently we are only concerned with the question of enhancement of sentence awarded to A-3.2. The incident in question took place at about 9.30 p.m. at a place called Kadapatti cross and the prosecution alleges that the complainant who is P.W. 1 was proceeding on his motor cycle when the accused stopped him and picked up a fight with him. The allegation against the accused are that A-1 and 2 were angry with P.W. 1 because he had filed some complaint in which they were involved and as far as A-3 is concerned, there appear to have been some background because P.W. 1 in his capacity as Chairman of the Education Society is alleged to have taken some action against the uncle of A-3. According to P.W. 1, the accused gave e...
Tag this Judgment!Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society, Bangalore Vs. Bailam ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1441; 1998(3)KarLJ304
Ashok Bhan, J.1. An important question in regard to the interpretation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with proviso to Section 11 of the Act arises for consideration in these cases. The question involved is as to whether an award under Section 11 of the Act can be made within two years of declaration under Section 6 with the previous approval of the Government as provided under Section 11A or is it enough if the approval is granted by the Government within two years of the declaration under Section 6 of the award passed by the Collector under Section 11.2. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.4244 of 1989 and other connected cases has taken the view that Section 11A will be satisfied if approval is granted by the Government within the time specified therein on an award made by the Collector. The Division Bench which has referred the present case to the larger Bench felt that on the wording of the first proviso to Section...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Shivappa Dundappa Iti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)173; 1998CriLJ3509; ILR1998KAR2717
M.F. Saldanha, J.1.The State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal assailing the acquittal of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 as also for enhancement of the punishment awarded to original accused No. 3. This Court has dismissed the State appeal as against A-1 and 2 and consequently we are only concerned with the question of enhancement of sentence awarded to A-3.2. The incident in question took place at about 9.30 p.m. at a place called Kadapatti cross and the prosecution alleges that the complainant who is PW-1 was proceeding on his motor cycle when the accused stopped him and picked up a fight with him. The allegation against the accused as that A-1 and 2 were angry with PW-1 because he had filed some complaint in which they were involved and as far as A-3 is concerned, there appear to have been some background because PW-1 in his capacity as Chairman of the Education Society is alleged to have taken some action against the uncle of A-3. According to PW-1, the accused gave expression ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2237; 1998(3)KarLJ159
Acts/Rules/Orders:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 84;Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 333, 334 and 335Case Referred:Sanna Eranna v. State of Karnataka, 1983(1) Kar. L.J. 115JUDGEMENTM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This appeal was originally argued in the month of February 1997. The appellant's learned Advocate had taken up the plea that the accused would come under the general exception insofar as it was her contention that he was a person of unsound mind at the time when the offence was committed. It was pointed out to the Court that the accused had a history of mental illness and that he had been treated more than once in the mental hospital at Dharwad. The allied submission that was canvassed was that the Trial Court ought to have, in view of this record ascertained the position as to whether the accused was of unsound mind at the time when the trial was being commenced as he would not have been in a legally fit condition to stand trial and enter upon bis defence. If this was his posit...
Tag this Judgment!Ameer Khan and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant347; ILR1998KAR2762; 1998(4)KarLJ129
ORDER1. Since the questions involved in these petitions are identical, all these petitions are taken up and heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners, in these petitions, are the owners of various items of lands, which are sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of a Truck Terminal at a place known as Kyathasandra on the National Highway near Tumkur Town.3. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 26th of October, 1996 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 30th of October, 1996, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to Writ Petition Nos. 10603 and 10604 of 1997, issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the notification dated 1st of February, 1997 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20th of February, 1997, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D to Writ Petition Nos. 10603 and 10604 of 1997, issued unde...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Limited Bangalore Vs. T. Suresh and Anothe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC189; 1999ACJ1108; ILR1998KAR2487; 1998(6)KarLJ378; (1999)ILLJ84Kant
1. This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the judgment and award dated 23-12-1993 in MVC No. 978 of 1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Bangalore City, whereunder as against the claim of Rs. 2,02,000/-, the MACT had awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a., holding that theboth the respondent 2-owner and the appellant-Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to compensate the respondent 1-claimant.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri O. Mahesh and the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent 1-claimant, Sri H.N. Nanjundaiah. The respondent 2-owner having been served with notice by way of substituted service by fixture had remained absent before this Court. I have also perused the case records together with the records of the Tribunal below.3. The facts relevant for our purpose are as hereunder:That the respondent 1-claimant left his house in his scooter bearing Regi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Wipro Information Technology Limited, Bangalore Vs. the Under Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(61)ECC482; 1998(102)ELT547(Kar); ILR1998KAR2136; 1998(4)KarLJ562
ORDER1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the communication dated 6th of February 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B, issued by the respondent and for a further direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. A few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of the writ petition, may be set out as hereunder:(a) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of Micro processor based computer systems and the petitioner imports large quantity of components for the purpose of computer systems and while importing the components, the petitioner pays the customs duty as applicable under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is also the case of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. M/s. Corner Hous ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)KarLJ61
ORDERThe appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside directing the respondent to pay the contribution of Rs. 4,508/- as claimed under the show cause notice dated 18-1-1991 with interest accrued thereon. The respondent is at liberty to revive this order depending on the decision of the case pending in the Supreme Court referred to above....
Tag this Judgment!State by Vemgal Police Vs. Seenappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3545; 1998(3)KarLJ673
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor. It is true that this is another prosecution under Section 302, Indian Penal Code where an acquittal has resulted principally because of several factors, the first being the aspect of delay and a series of inter se inconsistencies coupled with the usual credibility problem. The submission canvassed by the learned State Public Prosecutor was that some level of infirmities would always be present as it would be difficult to find a perfect case but that the substratum of the evidence is what accounts and that if all of this is carefully compiled after rejecting that which is required to be culled, that the charges could still be brought home. In principle, the learned Counsel is right when he points out that a Court is required to go through this exercise and salvage the good from the not so good material but in the present instance after having heard the learned Counsel on merits and having examined the record area by...
Tag this Judgment!N. Venkatappa Vs. Lingappa Reddy (Deceased) by L.Rs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant372; ILR1998KAR2730
1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14th June, 1988, delivered by Smt. Manjula Chellur, XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No. 3005 of 1983, A. Lingappa Reddy v N. Venkateshappa, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed and directing the defendant-appellant to execute the sale deed in respect of Sy. No. 71, measuring 0.10 guntas and 0.25 guntas of land in Sy. No. 74/1B, after having received the balance consideration of Rs. 78,000/-. It further directed if the sale deed is not executed as directed, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to deposit the balance consideration of Rs. 78,000/- in Court and get the sale deed registered in his name, through a Commissioner to be appointed by the Court. The Trial Court further directed the defendant and restrained him permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land that is Sy. No. 71 measuring 0.10...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »