Karnataka Court June 2000 Judgments
Jinnappa Pareesh Hulakund Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR607
B. Padmaraj, J. 1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State at a considerable length and carefully perused the entire case records in detail withtheir assistance.2. This appeal is by the accused Jinnappa Pareesh Hulakund of Halingali Village and is directed against the judgment and order of the Trial Court whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of his wife Smt. Sunanda aged about 26 years, on 21-11-1995 around 2 p.m. in the afternoon, over a pathway situated in the land of P.W. 8, by committing assault on her with a weapon called sickle used for cutting the sugar-cane crop, while the deceased Sunanda was returning home with a bundle of grass on her head, along with her sister-in-law Shobha, P.W. 3 along the pathway situated in the aforesaid land of P.W. 8-Bhupal. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Ninganagowda and Others Vs. Smt. Shantavva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3749; ILR2000KAR3108; 2000(5)KarLJ91
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 20-7-1998 passed by the Munsiff and JMFC, Byadagi in P.C. No. 40 of 1995. The petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the complainant. She filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. before the JMFC, Byadagi. The learned Magistrate referred the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. for investigation. The Police filed the 'B' report. Being not satisfied with the 'B' report, the respondent filed the protest application.2. Mr. Anand Navalgimath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such protest application which is not in the form of the complaint is not tenable. On the other hand Sri D.G. Mogali, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is a futile exercise to rewrite once again the complaint in detail. Protest application means the whole complaint has to be looked into. I found there is some force in this submission. It is not necessary to rewrite the same points written i...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. B.V. Paramesh and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ913; 2001(4)KarLJ173
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The Insurer M/s. New India Assurance Company has questioned the common judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal passed in M.V.C. Nos. 635, 1148 and 609 of 1991 insofar as it relates to the liability whereas the wife, sons and mother of the deceased Pushparaj in M.V.C. No. 635 of 1991 being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs. 2,13,000/- preferred M.F.A. No. 1731 of 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case areas follows: That on 1-2-1991 at about 9.10 a.m. the deceased Muniswamy in M.V.C. No. 609 of 1991, the deceased S. Pushparaj in M.V.C. No. 635 of 1991 and another injured Revanna in M.V.C. No. 1148 of 1991 were waiting for the traffic signal at the intersection of Magadi Road and West of Chord Road to proceed towards Kamaksbipalya on their respective vehicles. While they were so waiting for the traffic signal, that a lorry bearing Registration No. CNX 5337 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them as a ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Samarth Constructions and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2989; 2001(3)KarLJ196
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-7-1995 delivered by the Civil Judge, Sirsi, in Arbitration Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1994.2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that, an application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was made for permission to file the award and for issuance of notice of filing of the award to the parties. That the sole Arbitrator in the case between the parties had been the applicant who had moved the application under Section 14(2) on 28-1-1993. He entered upon the reference and after consideration of the matter and hearing both the parties, the Arbitrator passed/delivered the award on 30-12-1993. The said award was submitted before the Court with all the documents and the notices were ordered to be issued to both the parties. On 26-2-1994 both the parties were duly served with the notice. The parties though put in appearance through Counsels, but they did not file any objections nor any application for setting aside...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Alias Razor Gopi Alias Disco Gopi Alias Gopinaidu Vs. State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR355; 2001(4)KarLJ326
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully perused the case records with their assistance.2. The appellant herein, who was the sole accused before the Trial Court, was tried by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that on 3-6-1994 at about 11.30 p.m. in the night near Kerekodi Circle in Tumkur town, he committed the murder of one Paramesha by committing assault on him with a knife on his neck and that further in the course of the same transaction he also committed assault with the same knife on the complainant-Girisha P.W. 2, a companion of the deceased and caused injuries to his neck. The appellant/accused has been convicted by the Trial Court for the above said offences and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Appaji Vs. State by Nuggehalli Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2769; 2000(5)KarLJ50
1. This is one of the unusual cases of infanticide alleged to have been committed by none else than the father of twin infant daughters hardly aged 1 year. According to the prosecution, accused and his wife P.W. 1-Jayalakshmamma had four daughters. Out of whom, the two deceased Suma and Sumalatha aged about one year were twins and the youngest. As per the prosecution case, as the accused had only daughters and no son, he wanted to marry the daughter of P.Ws. 8 and 9 and as they alleged to have informed him that if there are so many daughters, they will not give their daughter in marriage to accused, it is alleged that in the night of 25-1-1995, he killed both the infants while they were sleeping in the cradles by smothering. The investigation started on the first information given by the accused himself as per Ex. P. 23 on 26-1-1995 at about 7 a.m. As per Ex. P. 23, he has reported to the police that on the night when the accused and P.W. 1 along with the deceased children were sleepin...
Tag this Judgment!Shekhappa Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Kop ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3956
ORDER1. This is decree-holder's revision directed against the Execution Court's order dated 5-6-1999 made in E.P. No. 538 of 1997 awarding him the Advocate's fee of Rs. 50/- only per cost towards the execution proceeding while declining his claim to the same at the rate of 50% of the Advocate's fee awarded on the original suit.2. Admittedly, the reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act had passed an award in favour of the decree-holder in LAC No. 3 of 1988, dated 17-4-1995 awarding compensation of Rs. 18,65,441-20 for his lands acquired for the public purpose. That award was put to execution by him in the said E.P. No. 538 of 1997. Whole of the award amount is stated to have been, recovered from the judgment-debtors. As regards the Advocate's fee payable for the Counsel representing the decree-holder in the execution proceeding, an application was filed to award the same at Rs. 5,900/- in accordance with the relevant provisions under Rule 100(a) and (d) of the Karna...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Yokogawa Bluestar Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(72)ECC279; 2001(129)ELT598(Kar)
R. Gururajan, J.1. The Union of India and four other officials of the Union of India have filed this appeal aggrieved by the order passed in WP No. 33537/94 dated 2-8-1999.2. Facts : The Govt. of India, in exercise of its power under Section 3A of Import & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 notified an export and import policy and was made effective from 1-4-1992 for a period of five years. The said policy provided for importing capital goods by Companies with a licence issued under EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) Scheme at a concessional rate of customs duty subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. The petitioner acting on the policy imported capital goods after obtaining a licence under the scheme at a concessional rate of 25% of CIF value subject to an undertaking of export obligation to be fulfilled by the petitioner to the extent of 3 times the CIF value within a period of four years. Petitioner placed purchase orders in terms of the policy for procuring the capital goods to be...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Others Vs. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ134; ILR2000KAR3809; 2001(1)KarLJ91
Respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to also as 'claimants 1 and 2') are respectively the husband and son of one Rajalakshmi, On 22-5-1997 she was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-25D-6929 as a pillion rider. Her son (second respondent herein) was the rider of the motorcycle. According to them, when the motorcycle was proceeding near ASC Centre, Lower Agaram Road, Bangalore, a military truck bearing registration No. 91-D-89858X which was proceeding in the same direction, suddenly turned to the left in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorbike on the right side; and as a consequence, the said Rajalakshmi fell from the motorcycle and the truck ran over her, as a result of which she died at the spot. Feeling aggrieved, her husband and son filed MVC No. 2566 of 1997 claiming a compensation of Rs. 29 lakhs, against the driver (second respondent before the Tribunal and third respondent in this appeal) and the owners (respondents 1, 3 to 5 before the Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Anchor Lines (Private) Limited, Mangalore Vs. M/S. Cement Corpora ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4728; 2000(4)KarLJ485
ORDER1. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. It has its registered office at Mangalore.2. M/s. Cement Corporation of India is a public limited company and has its registered office at Score Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. It is a Government of India Enterprise. The primary activity of the company is to manufacture and distribute cement to its various prestigious customers. The company has awarded contract of handling and transportation of cement at Mangalore to the petitioner-company under Contract No. CCI:HYZO:MKTG:92-93/3311, dated 17-9-1992. The purchase order contract was initially for a period of three months, which came to be extended by mutual consent for a further period upto 6-7-1993. Apart from other terms and conditions, the purchase order contract provided for furnishing of Bank Guarantee in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) for the due fulfillment of terms of contract by the petitioner-Company. Pursu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »