Karnataka Court April 2001 Judgments
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Tamil Selvi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1810
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. This appeal was admitted by my brother Justice N.S. Veerabhadraiah after passing the following order:Heard. It is seen that the Claims Tribunal has indiscriminately awarded the compensation without applying its mind. Therefore, the Registry is directed to take note of the fact and make an entry in the confidential record.I am in entire agreement with the views expressed by my brother and I have no reason to differ from it. It is a case where a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was granted to a person who has lost her right hand and the formula applied is as if it is compensation payable on the death of the victim. It is unfortunate that the liberality in awarding compensation has been wrongly spelled and understood by the Tribunal. It is true that even a loss of nail is not replaceable and it can never be compensated by any amount of money. But unfortunately, we are governed by the rules and regulations which are now more or less formed into formulas and even as the Schedule ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Tamil Selvi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: I(2003)ACC605
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. This appeal was admitted by my Brother Justice N.S. Veerabhadraiah after passing the following order:Heard. It is seen that the Claims Tribunal has indiscriminately awarded the compensation without applying its mind. Therefore, the Registry is directed to take note of the fact and make an entry in the confidential record.I am in entire agreement with the views expressed by my Brother and I have no reason to differ from it. It is a case where a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was granted to a person who has lost her right hand and the formula applied is as if it is compensation payable on the death of the victim. It is unfortunate that the liberality in awarding compensation has been wrongly spelled and understood by the Tribunal. It is true that even a loss of nail is not replaceable and it can never be compensated by any amount of money. But unfortunately, we are governed by the rules and regulations which are now more or less formed into formulas and even as the Schedul...
Tag this Judgment!Pushparaj Vs. Subbanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3601; ILR2001KAR4569; 2002(3)KarLJ293
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The awful tale of police torture and wrongful confinement in the police station of the petitioner by the Kengerigate Police is the grievance made out in the private complaint filed.2. The petitioner contends that on 9-10-1998 at 11 a.m. the respondents 3 to 5 came to his house and whisked him to the police station, he was partially undressed put in lockup, beaten black and blue with hockey sticks; the respondents 1 and 2 also said to have participated in illegal action against the petitioner. One Dr. Raveendra who has a clinic nearby Kengerigate Police Station was summoned, he found that the condition of the petitioner was very critical, treated the petitioner and advised the respondents to immediately shift him to a hospital for treatment suspecting some grave and dangerous consequences. Smt. Ku-muda, Subramani, the brother and the friends of the petitioner Nagaraj and Satyanarayan are said to be witnesses to the ghastly acts committed by the respondents. Th...
Tag this Judgment!G. Dasaratharam Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant353; ILR2001KAR3215; 2001(4)KarLJ623
ORDER ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS in C.P. No. 299 of 1998 in WRIT APPEAL No. 10140 of 1996 connected with W.A. No. 67 of 1997 1. This civil review petition was listed before this Bench for admission in pursuance of the Administrative order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in exercise of his power under Rule 5 of the Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959 (in short 'Rules'). 2. When the matter came up for admission before this Bench, the learned Counsel Sri G.S. Visweswara, on behalf of the petitioner raised the preliminary objection regarding hearing of this C.P. by this Bench consisting of two Judges wherein one of the learned Judges was not the member of Judge who heard the writ appeal placing reliance upon the provisions of Order 47, Rule 5 of the CPC contending that the matter should be heard by my learned brother Judge Mr. Justice Gopala Gowda, alone for the reason that the Division Bench which has heard the matter consists of Hon'ble Justice the then Chief Justice R.P. Sethi and Mr. J...
Tag this Judgment!The Home School, Bangalore and anr. Vs. M. Shafi Ul Huq and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4250; 2001(6)KarLJ93
1. These two appeals are against the order passed on I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 filed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, henchmen etc., from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule premises and for an injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing or in any manner damaging the compound wall constructed in-between premises Nos. 17 and 18 and the chain-linked wire mesh erected between premises Nos. 16 and 18 of Sri M.N. Krishna Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore.2. The said applications were resisted by the defendants. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties and after considering the materials produced before it rejected both the applications by a common order. This order is under challenge by the appellants in this appeal.3. The facts in this case are as follows.-Premises bearing No. 17 belongs to the first respondent and 18 belongs to the second respondent. The second respondent had filed a petition for eviction of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ayanur Manjunatha Vs. S. Bangarappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2642; 2002(2)KarLJ50
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. The returned candidate to the election for the Shimoga Constituency arrayed as respondent 1 to this election petition has filed this application - I.A. No. II under Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Civil Procedure Code'), 1908 read with Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'R.P. Act'), for striking out paras 4 to 24 of the election petition and dismiss the same with exemplary costs.2. For the 21st Shimoga Parliamentary Constituency consisting of 8 Assembly Segments, the election petitioner, Ayanur Manjunatha from the Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) ticket, respondent 1-S. Bangarappa and respondents 2, 3 and 4, K.H. Srinivas, V.A. Shariff and Smt. Vasundhara Devi contested the elections held on 11-9-1999. The 1st respondent was declared elected, by a majority of 95,038 votes.3. This election is challenged under Section 81 of the R.P. Act by the...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Muralidar Vs. Ashok G.Y.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4127; 2001(4)KarLJ233
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Shimoga in C.C. No. 368 of 1993. The appellant is the complainant before the Trial Court had filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent-the accused before the Trial Court for commit-ting an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per the complainant's version, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 10-2-1993 for his business purpose and towards the repayment of the said liability cheque, Ex. P. 1, dated 20-8-1993 for Rs. 30,000/- was issued drawn on Bank of India, Shimoga Branch. The complainant submitted the cheque through his banker for collection which was dishonoured with an endorsement 'there are no sufficient funds'. Consequently, a legal notice was issued as required under law intimating the dishonour and denying payment. The accused replied the legal notice disown...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Ramanna and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1464; 2001(4)KarLJ614
1. The State has preferred the appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the First Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class in C.C. No. 5714 of 1994. The respondents 1 to 4 are the accused, who are charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 504, 506(2) and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 21-7-1994 at about 12.00 midnight, the accused persons alleged to have trespassed into the site belonging to Rangegowda, the complainant examined as P.W. 1, demolished the latrine room with crow-bar and pickaxe and caused damage to the property to an extent of Rs. 2,000/-. When P.W. 1 came and questioned, the accused persons abused him and threatened to kill him if he were to interfere and made physical advances for assaulting. P.W. 1 escaped and goes to the house of the PSI situated nearby the scene. The wife of PSI was present in the house. The said lady gave a telephonic message to the police station and the message was received by P....
Tag this Judgment!Uma Gangadhar Vs. Classic Coffee and Spices Private Limited, Chickmaga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ193
ORDER1. The petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 1530 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chickma-galur. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court. The respondent is a private limited company. The Assistant Manager of the respondent- Company launched the prosecution under Section 200 of the Cr. P.O. against the accused for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cognizance is taken and sworn statement is recorded. Amongst the documents marked at the stage of recording the sworn statement, Ex. P-l is the letter of authorisation given to the Assistant Manager by the Joint Managing Director authorising him to give evidence and produce the relevant documents on behalf of the company. In a sense, Ex. P-l purports to authorise to give evidence in the case before the Court. However, there is no authorisation for laun...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. H.P. Vishweswaraiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Kar)616; [2001]250ITR863(KAR); [2001]250ITR863(Karn)
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the appellant's learned counsel and learned senior counsel who represents the respondents. The main point raised by the appellant's learned counsel was that admittedly, if one were to look at the sequence of the calendar of events, in other words, the strict dates when the additional or enhanced compensation was admittedly received by the assessee at a point of time when the provisions of Section 54E(3) were no longer on the statute book in so far as the same were omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1988. The appellant's learned counsel submits that irrespective of what may be possible in other situations, there is a clear error in the present instance in affording the benefit to the assessee under the provision that was no longer on the statute book as on the date when the additional compensation was physically received. Prima facie, the submission appeared absolutely invincible because going by first principles, the contentio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »