Karnataka Court May 2000 Judgments
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Siddarameshwar a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ181; (2001)IILLJ769Kant
1. This is an appeal filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Corporation assailing an order passed by the Court for Economic Offences on 30-9-1994 in C.C. No. 1279 of 1993. It was alleged that the three accused, namely the Company and its two partners were liable to be convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 85(e) and 85-A of the E.S.I. Act on the ground that for the period ending 30-9-1992, they had failed to file the relevant returns and pay the contribution for the period in question. The Trial Court upheld the defence canvassed on behalf of the accused persons which was to the effect that even though they had been convicted in C.C. No. 1679 of 1989 on 31-1-1990 for offences of a similar type, that there was no independent evidence to indicate that the accused had committed offences for the present period and that the material possessed by the Department, namely the inspection reports etc., with regard to the number of employees and the use of power for the e...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Sathyanarayana (Deceased) by L.Rs and Another Vs. State by Inspec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ17
1. These two appeals have been preferred by the original accused 1 and 2 in Special Case (Corruption) No. 1 of 1993 decided by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kodagu, District Madikeri on 7-10-1995.2. Briefly stated, the accused 1 who was then the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Madikeri and accused 2 who was then a clerk working under accused 1 were alleged to have demanded and received illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- each from P.W. 1-Raghavendra Holla for purposes of showing favour to him in relation to an application that had been filed pertaining to a certain property. It is unnecessary for me to embark upon a detailed narration of the prosecution case because it was alleged that the complaint was registered by the Madikeri Lokayukta Police on 2-8-1991 and that pursuant to this complaint a trap was laid. The complainant was asked to handover the ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination which had been treated with phenolphthalein powder and to give a signal...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Nagaraj Vs. B. Anjanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ518
ORDERG. Patribasavan Goud, J.1. On a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,' 1881 by the petitioner-accused, the petitioner-accused was proceeded against in CC No. 4319 of 1994 by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, and by the judgment and order dated 11-10-1995, was acquitted of the said offence.2. As against the above said judgment and order of acquittal, the respondent-complainant preferred Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. at Criminal Revision Petition No. 254 of 1995 before the learned XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The learned Sessions Judge entertained the said Revision Petition and allowed the same by his order dated 29-11-1997, setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and convicting the petitioner-accused of the offence p...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkamma and Others Vs. N. Suresh and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC461; ILR2000KAR2234; 2000(4)KarLJ468
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the CPC by the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 131 of 1988 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandya, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent. The parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants in the course of this judgment.2. The plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties contending that his father late Nanjegowda had three wives namely the 1st defendant-Chikkamma, the late Kempamma and the mother of the plaintiff Boramma who is the 5th defendant in the suit. The defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of Nanjegowda through the 1st defendant-Chikkamma. The defendant 4-Bhagyamma is the daughter of late Nanjegowda through his second wife the late Kempamma and defendant 6 is the sister of the plaintiff and daughter of the 5th defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff was born on 14-5-1969 and that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are the memb...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rangaswamaiah Vs. R. Shettappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)26; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)235; 2002CriLJ4792; ILR2000KAR4556; 2000(6)KarLJ585
ORDER1. On the complaint filed by the respondent, alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short), the petitioner came to be convicted by the learned Magistrate of the said offence, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Since the amount covered by the cheque concerned was Rs. 50,000/-, the learned Magistrate directed that, out of the fine amount of Rs. 75,000/-, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be paid to the respondent-complainant.The petitioner-accused's appeal before the learned Sessions Judge came to be dismissed.The petitioner has now approached this Court under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C.2. In course of hearing of this revision petition, the petitioner and the respondent have presented an application under Section 320(6) of the Cr. P.C. Both the parties, along with their Counsel, are present in Court, and the parties submit that they have compounded the offence. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa Lachchappa Lamani (Deceased) by L.Rs and Another Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant322; 2001(2)KarLJ212
ORDER1. I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate, respondents' learned Advocate and the learned Government Advocate.2. The petitioner has disputed the validity of an order passed by the Tribunal in the year 1982 through a petition filed in the year 1997. In paragraph 7 of the petition, an averment has been made to the effect that the petitioners' family was represented by Ramappa Lachchappa Lamani who was effectively the Manager or Kartha and that he had not discussed or informed the remaining members of the family about the proceedings in question. According to the petitioners, it was only in the year 1997 when their possession was sought to be disturbed, that they came to know of the order of 1982, and that they obtained copies and have challenged the same. Effectively, the petitioners are trying to overcome the long delay in approaching the Court on the ground that they were not aware of the proceedings.3. The respondents are represented and the main contesting respondent R-3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Channakeshavaiah Vs. Smt. Lakshmi and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ187; II(2001)DMC314; 2001(3)KarLJ458
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 16-7-1998 delivered by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore (Sri P. Seetaramaiah) whereby the Trial Court i.e., the Family Court has awarded a maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month in favour of the present respondent 1-Smt. Lakshmi and a sum of Rs. 200/- as maintenance to the present respondent 2-Master Deepak from the date of petition for maintenance. The learned Trial Judge, after consideration of materials on record, arrived at the conclusion that the present revision petitioner who was respondent before the Family Court had been negligent by his conduct in maintaining the claimants in the maintenance case namely his wife and the minor child. It found that the husband, i.e., the present revision petitioner who was respondent 1 before the Family Court, without any rhyme or reason has been neglecting his wife and child and was not maintaining them. The Court also found that the claimants-petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!The Honnavar Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Honnavar Vs. Karnataka C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2220; 2000(4)KarLJ265
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Vijayashankar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.V. Shastry, learned Counsel for the respondent 4. Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties for final disposal.2. The matter revolves around the appointment of the 2nd petitioner as General Manager of 1st petitioner-bank.3. The facts, very briefly, are the 1st petitioner is a co-operative bank having various branches. Its area of operation is within Uttara Kannada District. The 1st respondent was pleased to give approval for appointment to the post of Manager and other employees. Permission was alsogranted under Rule 17(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules to have a post of General Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 2,600-4,575 as per Annexure-B. The 1st petitioner-bank amended its bye-laws to have a post of General Manager as per Bye-law No. 42. Bye-law No. 38(T) empowers the bank to make subsidiary rules relating to the condition...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Basavaraj an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2432; 2000(5)KarLJ327
ORDER1. The respondent was working as a conductor under the petitioner-corporation. While he was on duty, the bus bearing Regn. No. MYF 9411 was checked on 27-4-1987 which revealed that he had failed to issue tickets to two passengers travelling from Koralli to Nagarahalli despite collecting fare of Re. 0.75 from each of them. He also failed to issue tickets to 15 passengers travelling from stage 14 to 16 having collected the fare of Rs. 1.50 from each of them from the place of boarding itself. He had not closed the way bill against the stage 15. In view of this report, the departmental enquiry was held and charges were framed against him on 13-5-1987. In the departmental enquiry, it was found that the charges were proved and accordingly, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 17-8-1988. He raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 48 of 1992 and the 2nd respondent held by its order dated 31-8-1996 accepting the reference and the dismissal order dated 17-8-1988 passed by the petitioner wa...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamurthy Vs. State by Ashok Nagar Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3844; 2000(6)KarLJ243
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. These three appeals arise from the judgment dated 22/23-1-1996 passed by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in S.C. No. 353 of 1992. Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1996 is filed by accused 1 challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 1996 is filed by the State challenging the inadequacy of sentence against accused 1 by praying for enhancement of the sentence from imprisonment for life to death punishment and Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 1996 is also filed by the State challenging the acquittal of accused 2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The few facts necessary for consideration of the appeals are as follows: The deceased Sunanda Varadhan, aged 73 years and her mother Rukamma, aged 90 years, who come from well to do fa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »