Karnataka Court July 2001 Judgments
R. Veeraiyan Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, South ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(77)ECC315; ILR2001KAR5462
ORDERThe Court1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsels for both parties on I.A. I, filed for appellant under Section 389 of the Cr. P.C. praying to suspend the impugned sentences against appellant and release him on bail on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks fit.2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, the appellant herein, who was accused 3 (in Spl. Case No. 25 of 1997) before the learned trial Sessions Judge has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' in short), and he was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.3. The respondent-prosecuting agency has filed its objection statement opposing LA. I on the ground that in view of the mandate of law contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the applicant-appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.4. Mr. Hashmath Pash...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Anup Product Limited (Agro Chemical-division), ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4334; ILR2001KAR5217
ORDERThe Court1. The petitioners are being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 ('Act' for short) at C.C. No. 629 of 1995 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Bhalki. In this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., they seek quashing of the same.2. The alleged offence pertains to the material, trade name of which is ANUFEM and the commercial name is FENVALRATE. Certain undisputed facts may be set out. Purchase was made on 28-11-1994. It was sent for analysis to the Insecticides Control Laboratory at Bellary on 29-11-1994. The Analyst tested it on 9-12-1994 and opined that the sample does not conform to the set standard.Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act requires that a copy of the said report shall be delivered by the Insecticide Inspector to the person from whom the sample was taken. In pursuance of the said requirement under sub-section (2), a copy was delivered on 27-1-1995. As per sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, t...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Hassan City Police Vs. Lokesh and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4655; 2001(5)KarLJ595
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor as also the learned Counsel Smt. G.S. Anusuya on behalf of the original accused 1. 2. We need to mention that some of the other accused are absconding and Non-bailable warrants have been issued by this Court but so far not been executed. The difficulty that has arisen is that accused 1 who has undergone more than 5 years in custody has been arrested under the Non-bailable warrant issued and he is at present in custody. The learned Advocate has presented an application for bail. The learned State Public Prosecutor very rightly submitted that normally he would not have opposed the grant of bail, but that the accused persons in those dacoity cases have displayed a tendency of moving from place to place or absconding as a result of which it becomes impossible to dispose of the appeal. His request to the Court was, therefore, that the appeal to the Court was, therefore, that the appeal itself should he heard and disposed...
Tag this Judgment!State by Assistant Conservator of Forests, Shikaripur Sub-division, Sh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR473; 2002(3)KarLJ269
ORDERG. Patribasavan Goud, J. 1. Petitioner is the R.C. holder of vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 15-1805 - a Canter. The said vehicle is seized when it was allegedly being used for illegal transportation of 120 Beete wood pieces. The petitioner sought interim custody of that vehicle. The authorised officer rejected that claim. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has granted interim custody on certain conditions including the one for executing an Indemnity Bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum, in addition to restrictions on alienation etc. In this revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C., the State is aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge insofar as the learned Sessions Judge has not imposed the condition on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee. The learned Counsel for the respondent Sri C.H. Jadhav submits that the vehicle is a small vehicle, that even the materials concerned were insignificant, in the sense that, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Jayanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore Vs. the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)KarLJ467
P.V. Reddi, C.J.1. The limited question in this appeal is whether at the instance of respondents 6 to 9 who entered into agreements for purchase of land andwho entered into possession on payment of full sale consideration before the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government can exercise its power under Section 48 to withdraw the lands from acquisition irrespective of the consent of the landowners for the acquisition of the land.2. In the writ petition out of which the appeal arises, the order dated 16-12-1988 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department was assailed. That order was passed pursuant to the liberty given to the Government to pass orders afresh as regards the withdrawal of the land in question from acquisition after giving opportunity of making representation to the beneficiary, namely, the appellant-Society. On giving notice to the appellant-Society, the Government considered it just and proper to withdraw the noti...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sreekanth and anr. Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant26; ILR2004KAR3835
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners are the lessees of Anjana Theatre in Bangalore City, They have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the Endorsement at Annexure-C dated24-3-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent refusing to renew the licence of the theatre on the ground that the period of lease is over and the order at Annexure-D dated 4-5-2001 rejecting the appeal preferred against the order passed' by the 2nd respondent. A Direction is sought to the 2nd respondent to renew the license of the theatre.2. The brief facts of this case are, Anjana Theatre belongs to the 3rd respondent M/s. Anjana Enterprises. The petitioners took the said theatre on lease under the Lease deed at Annexure-A dated 25-7-1995. The period of lease was five years and eight months from25-7-1995 to 25-3-2001. Pursuant to the lease deed, the petitioners were put in possession and they were exhibiting the films in the theatre. It is stated that on 23-11-2000 the 3rd respondent attempted to dispossess the ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sreekanth and anr. Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Divis ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ231
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioners are the lessees of Anjana Theatre in Bangalore City. They have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the endorsement at Annexure-C, dated 24-3-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent refusing to renew the licence of the theatre on the ground that the period of lease is over and the order at Annexure-D, dated 4-5-2001 rejecting the appeal preferred against the order passed by the 2nd respondent. A direction is sought to the 2nd respondent to renew the licence of the theatre. 2. The brief facts of this case are, Anjana Theatre belongs to the 3rd respondent-M/s. Anjana Enterprises. The petitioners took the said theatre on lease under the lease deed at Annexure-A, dated 25-7-1995. The period of lease was five years and eight months from 25.-7-1995 to 25-3-2001. Pursuant to the lease deed, the petitioners were put in possession and they were exhibiting the films in the theatre. It is stated that on 23-11-2000 the 3rd respondent attempted to disposse...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. K.N. Vasude ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1073; 2002(2)KarLJ331
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The Commissioner, Bangalore City Corporation (in short 'the Corporation') has preferred this intra-Court appeal. The Corporation has been established under Section 3 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short the 'Act'). He is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge who has directed the appellant to pay interest at Bank rate on Rs. 39,53,096.50 for the period 1-10-1981 to 10-3-1994 as recommended by an Expert Committee which on calculation would have come to more than Rs. 84 lacs. This direction has beer, issued pursuant to an alleged concession given by the Counsel appearing for the Corporation in the writ proceedings.2. The present appeal filed by the Corporation was earlier dismissed on 23-8-1995. An I.A. filed for recalling the same was also rejected by an order dated 10-11-1995. Against the said two orders, the Corporation preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 3520 and 3521 of 1998 before the Supreme Court, which were allowed by an order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Walter Rosario and Another Vs. Corporation Bank, Pandeshwar Branch, Ma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant483; 2001(44)ARBLR256(Kar); ILR2001KAR4235; 2001(4)KarLJ620
1. The only common question that arises for consideration in these two appeals is as to whether the provisions of Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 constitutes a bar on the jurisdiction of a Civil Court for making an award of an Arbitrator a rule of the Court or a decree of the Court in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, subsequent to 30-11-1994, from which date onwards the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has come into effect.2. The brief facts giving rise to the above two appeals are:The appellants here in M.F.A. Nos. 871 and 874 of 1995 were borrowers of certain amounts from the first respondent-bank. The lending of the money by the bank in favour of the appellants was covered by an agreement between the parties, which inter alia provided for reference to an Arbitrator, if dispute arises between the parties in the matter of repayment of the borrowed amounts.3. Disp...
Tag this Judgment!Hariappan Vs. State by Police Inspector, Belthangady Circle
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4286; ILR2001KAR4211
H.N. Narayan, J. 1. The appellant who is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and R.I. for 2 years for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence in this appeal. He was charged and tried for these two offences by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows: The accused-appellant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Shantha. He was a drunkard. He was in the habit of ill-treating his wife. He used to assault her whenever he came home drunk and subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. On 23-2-1995, Smt. Shantha and her children went to Man Festival in the evening and came back before the school timing of her son P.W. 3, Master Rajendra, son of the accused on the next day morning as the Mari Festival was during night. There was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »