Karnataka Court July 2000 Judgments
Shekhappa Basavanneppa Halasur Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ279
Acts/Rules/Orders:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-II;Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3JUDGEMENTS.K. Sangalad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-11-1998 passed in S.C. No. 94 of 1996 convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-11 and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 3 years and also S.I. for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The story of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:3. The appellant hereinafter referred to as 'accused'.4. The accused was working as A.R.S.I. at D.A.R., Dharwad and he was instructor for the trainees. On 20-10-1994, there was a rehearsal on the eve of 'Police Martyrs Day' between 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. It was held at the police parade ground at the Headquarters of Dharwad. At about 6.50 a.m. or 6.55 a.m. the accused fired at a mad dog which came to that ground with 0.22 rifle. But the shot...
Tag this Judgment!C. Nazeer Ahmed Vs. S. Jahan Ara
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3536; 2001(2)KarLJ288
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Chickmagalur in a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent. The controversy arises in the following circumstances.-2. By an agreement dated 3rd of December, 1982, the defendant in the suit and appellant herein agreed to sell in favour of the plaintiff-respondent certain immovable property described in the Schedule to the agreement for a total consideration of Rs. 3,25,000/-. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was received by the defendant-seller at the time of execution of: the agreement while a further amount of Rs. 30,000/- was to be paid by the purchaser within 45 days thereafter. The agreement provided that the remaining consideration of Rs. 2,76,000/- shall be paid to the sellerat the time of registration of the sale deed within six months from the date the additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid. It is not disputed that the appellant-seller received a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Nadan Alias Arogyanadan Vs. State by Frazer Town Police Station, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1447; ILR2001KAR4012; 2001(6)KarLJ474
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and carefully perused the case records with their assistance.2. The deceased is one Smt. Valarmathi, aged about 30 years at the time of her death. The appellant/accused and deceased Smt. Valarmathi had been living together as husband and wife in a house situated at Kuteeramma Koil Street in Cox Town, Bangalore. The appellant/accused was tried for the murder of the above said Valarmathi by committing assault on her with a grinding stone over a quarrel by suspecting her fidelity on the night of 5-9-1994 at about 10.00 p.m. in their above said house, as a result of which she died at about 1.30 a.m. on the intervening night of 6-9-1994 and the Trial Court found him guilty of the said offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Accordingly, the appellant has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Naika Vs. Rama Naik and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3305; 2000(6)KarLJ259
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for partition decreed by the Civil Judge, Puttur with a declaration that the plaintiff and his three brothers arrayed as defendants in the suit are entitled to partition and separate possession of l/4th share each in the suit property.2. One of the questions that fell for consideration before the Trial Court and which by far is the only issue that arises for consideration before us, was whether the daughters of Mahalinga Naik, father of the parties to the suit were also entitled to claim a share in the property sought to be partitioned. The said question arose on account of an assertion made in the additional written statement filed by defendant 2 to the effect that the daughters of Sri Mahalinga Naik were necessary parties to the suit as they were also entitled to a share in the property in question as per the custom prevalent among Marathi Naika community to which the parties belong. Appreciation of the evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kuttuppan Vs. K.P. Radha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ2119
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 21.1.1994 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolar (Principal District Judge, Kolar) whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,49,016 less interim relief, with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal further found that the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation amount. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle, namely, vehicle bearing No. CKN 4730 has come up in appeal.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that on the fateful day, i.e., 8.9.1990 at about 8 p.m., the deceased and the appellant were moving on the scooter in question and according to the claimants' case, the deceased was the pillion rider and the present appellant, who was respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, was the driver of the scooter. According to the claimants' c...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Shantha Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC725; 2001ACJ1371; ILR2000KAR3803; 2001(2)KarLJ121
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 168 and 170JUDGEMENT1. This appeal is directed against the award in MVC No. 1333 of 1990 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, on 4-9-1993.2. The facts that has given rise to be proceedings of the Tribunal was that the appellant and one Gopala Gowda were proceeding on Grant Road on their motor-cycle bearing No. CKP 5218 which was driven by the appellant. At that time, a lorry bearing No. MYA 7013 owned by the 2nd respondent came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor-cycle. As a result of the accident, the appellant and the other petitioner in MVC No. 1129 of 1990 were thrown off from the motor-cycle and sustained injuries. They were removed to Victoria Hospital and then transported to NIMHANS and Ramakrishna Nursing Home, Bangalore. Both were operated upon. It was claimed that the appellant had suffered permanent disability on account of injuries sustained. This appellant had claimed compensati...
Tag this Judgment!Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde and Others Vs. Venkataraman Manjappa Hegde ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3170; 2000(5)KarLJ456
1. The revision petitions L.R.R.P. Nos. 1627 of 1990 and 1628 of 1990 are filed against the common order passed by the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, dismissing the Appeal DAA.AP. 17 of 1986 with respect to Sy. No. 84 of Harepal Village, measuring 1 acre 10 guntas and allowing the appeal in DAA.AP. 28 of 1986 in part, modifying the order of the Land Tribunal, Sirsi, granted in favour of Venkataramana Manjappa Hegde (for short 'V.M. Hegde'), with respect to Sy. No. 85 of Harepal Village, measuring 3 acres 23 guntas.2. L.R.R.P. No. 2163 of 1990 is filed by V.M. Hegde, with respect to Sy. No. 143 against the same common judgment of the Appellate Authority, rejecting his claim with respect to 18 guntas of land in Sy. No. 143 of Harepal Village, reversing the order of the Land Tribunal.3. The revision petitioner filed Form 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 3 lands in Sy. No. 84 of Harepal Village, measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, Sy. No. 85 of the same village measuring 3 acr...
Tag this Judgment!H.D. Gangaraj Vs. N. Narayana Reddy and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3604; 2000(6)KarLJ268
ORDER1. This revision is filed by the landlord to challenge the order dated 17-4-1999 in case No. HRC 799 of 1998 passed by the Court of the Chief Judge of Small Causes at Bangalore, insofar as the same related to the permission to the respondents-tenants to put up water sump at their cost and without fastening the liability thereto on the petitioner-landlord herein and further giving liberty to the respondents-tenants to keep informed the City Civil Court which passed interim injunction order in a suit.2. The petitioner herein is the landlord. He was the respondent before the Trial Court, whereas the respondents herein were the petitioners before the Trial Court and they claimed themselves as tenants.3. The parties are henceforth referred to for convenience as the tenants and the landlord as they were before the Trial Court.4. The facts in brief are as hereunder:That the tenants had filed a petition under Section 44 of the Rent Control Act with a prayer that the Trial Court be pleased...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Jakkanna Alias Tippanna Mallappa Jakkannavar and Another Vs. Raja ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3881; 2000(6)KarLJ625
ORDER1. This matter coming on for orders this day is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, heard and disposed of by this order.2. Petitioners herein who are accused 1 and 2 have assailed the order dated 5-4-1999 passed in C.C. No. 931 of 1999 on the file of the JMFC, Chitradurga issuing process against them for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Few facts necessary for disposal of this petition are stated as under:The respondent herein presented a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. inter alia contending that accused 1 had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 50,000 knowing fully well that there was no sufficient fund in his account. The complainant issued a notice dated 22-2-1999 demanding the amount due and the said notice sent by registered post is duly served on the accused on 24-2-1999. Since the accused failed to pay the amount withi...
Tag this Judgment!Kota Co-operative Agricultural Bank Limited, Kota Vs. State of Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant36; ILR2000KAR3063; 2001(2)KarLJ188
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. In the above writ petitions and series of other writ petitions, the Co-operative Banks and Societies have challenged Section 57(2-a) and Section 29-G(6) of the Co-operative Societies Act on the ground that the same were arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.2. When the matter was resting at that, there arose a controversy before me when the Counsel for the petitioner on record Sri K.M. Nataraj had orally sought for permission to engage the services of another Advocate, Sri A.G. Holla (as he then was) to argue the matter on his behalf. Such a situation in fact arose before me time and again in some other matters too and as I was of the considered view that such a permission were to be granted only in the event a case is made out within the meaning of Rule 3 of Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959(henceforth referred to as the 'High Court Rules') and further that in the absence of that, an Advocate not on record would be acting as a Senior Advocate designated by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »