Karnataka Court January 2002 Judgments
State of Karnataka Vs. Siddappa Mallappa Badachi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ20
1. We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor for the State and the respondents' learned Counsel on merits.2. The incident in this case occurred at about 2.15 p.m. on 27-9-1989 at Rampura Village. The deceased, Shrishail Nagappa Guddodagi (hereinafter referred to as 'Nagappa') is alleged to have been assaulted by 7 accused, out of whom it is alleged that accused 6-Chandrawwa threw chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased and that the remaining six persons assaulted him with deadly weapons as a result of which he sustained injuries and died at the spot. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by P.Ws. 1 and 2 namely, the wife and the father and by several other persons some of whom have not been examined and others who have not supported the prosecution case. The Dalapathi reported the matter to the police who came to the spot commenced investigation, and arrested the accused persons. On completion of the investigation the accused were charge-sheeted for having committed ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shanmugam Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Bombay and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2000; 2002(2)KarLJ68
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. An officer of the Reserve Bank of India, aggrieved by the orders made by the Appellate Authority dated 21-4-1993 in confirming the orders made by the disciplinary authority dated 11-1-1992 is before this Court in a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. Facts in nutshell are:Petitioner is an officer of the Reserve Bank of India ('Bank' for short). At the relevant point of time, he was also an office-bearer of the local employees' union. Pursuant to a call given by the employees of the Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Branch, it appears a 'dharna' was made in the Chambers of the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore on 20-8-1987. On the same day, the Personnel Officer of the respondent-Bank made a report to the management with regard to the dharna conducted by the employees of the Bank in the Chambers of the Manager of the Bank. Since petitioner was one of those persons, who participated in the dharna, an order came to be made on 20-8-...
Tag this Judgment!Rekha Vs. Hindu Seva Prathistana, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)KarLJ620
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This civil revision petition at the instance of a third party who had sought to implead herself as a party defendant in Original Suit No. 148 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-13), Bangalore City is against the order dated 5th January, 2000 rejecting I.A. No. IV filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) declining the prayer in the I.A. by the Trial Court. 2. O.S. No. 148 of 1996 is filed by the plaintiff who is the first respondent in this revision petition, praying for a restraint order against the defendants 1 and 2 therein, from alienating the suit schedule premises in favour of the third defendant. The suit came to be filed as the plaintiff claims the suit property under a Will dated 15-8-1990 executed by one late Pandit S. Narayana Rao, who has bequeathed this property in favour of the plaintiff with a life-interest reserved in favour of Smt. Lakshmi Bai, the first defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR696(KAR); [2002]256ITR696(Karn)
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1.The Tribunal has referred the following question of law along with the statement of the case, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 75,000 had come out of the income of the firm, Madhu Sweets, and in holding ultimately that the amount represented the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources ?'A search was conducted at the residence of the assessee on August 17, 1984, and the assessee was found in possession of Rs. 50,000 in cash and Rs. 50,000 in the bank locker of his son. The assessee claimed that Rs. 75,000 out of Rs. 1,00,000 belonged to the firm, Madhu Sweets, of which he was a partner. This explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the said amount was treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources, under Section 69A of the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Deveeramma and ors. Vs. Shivalingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas15(Kar); ILR2002KAR1026; 2002(2)KarLJ248
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 424 of 2001 (P.C.R. No. 66 of 2000), pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davanagere, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act').2. The main contention of the petitioners is that they are only the Directors of M/s. Vinuta Homeopathic Medical Educational Association, Davanagere, and in no way concerned with the issue of the cheque and that the custodians are only accused 1 and 2, therefore, they cannot be made liable. Accordingly, they pray to quash the proceedings. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that whether the petitioners, in the capacity as Directors or not, are not liable to pay the loan amount is purely a matter of evidence and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the initial stage. In support of his contention, he also relied on the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Pukraj D. JaIn and ors. Vs. Dr. Gopalakrishna G. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1904; ILR2002KAR1337; 2002(2)KarLJ496
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the contesting parties and the learned Government Advocate for the State. It was on our direction that the petitioners' learned Advocate has impleaded the State as a formal party and carried out the formal amendment. Cop its of the proceedings may be furnished to the learned Government Advocate subsequently.2. The charge against the accused in this case arises from the allegation that after the High Court finally disposed of the dispute relating to the premises which are the subject-matter of this contempt proceeding that the contemnors took up the contention that the High Court order was an incorrect and non est order and that consequently they are within their rights to reagitate the matter before the Trial Court. A suit was accordingly instituted and the complainant alleges that the institution of those proceedings constitute abuse of the legal process. The earlier Division Bench issued notice to the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmana Reddy Vs. Police Inspector, Peenya Police Station, Bangalore a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1201; ILR2002KAR1455; 2002(5)KarLJ169
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner-Laxmana Reddy is seeking an order for quashing the order dated 25-2-1999 in PCR No. 166 of 1999 produced at Annexure-D and is also seeking for various other reliefs.2. Petitioner is the proprietor of a small-scale industries known as Laxmi Automates at Bangalore. He approached one Sri Venkatachar, Manager of Dhanalaxmi Bank Limited. Thereafter, he approached the Bank and he was sanctioned loan facility to the tune of Rs. 28,75,000/-. The said loan is subject to repayment by monthly equal instalment with agreed rate of interest. The petitioner states that the Bank filed a complaint before the CMM in PCR No. 166 of 1999 for certain offences committed by the petitioner. A direction was issued to the police to investigate the matter. The police authorities seized certain materials in this regard. Annexure-B is the private complaint filed by the Bank.3. Petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking an anticipatory bail. The bail was granted wit...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Haneef Vs. Iqbal Ali and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)KarLJ384
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17-12-1999 passed in M.A. No. 51 of 1999 by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga, dismissing the appeal which in turn had been preferred against the order dated 23-8-1999 passed on I.A. No. I in O.S. No. 452 of 1999 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gulbarga, dismissing the said application for an order of temporary injunction against the defendants who were step-brothers. Plaintiff (petitioner) had filed the suit in respect of the suit property contending that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner and in possession of the suit property and the same was gifted to him by his father way back in the year 1956.2. The defendants in the suit disputing this position denied that the plaintiff had been given a gift of such a nature, that the plaintiffs mother who is said to have received the gift on behalf of the plaintiff was in fact not alive as on the date when...
Tag this Judgment!E. Gurumurthy Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR217]; ILR2002KAR600; 2002(2)KarLJ1
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. It is alleged that the appellant-workman was a permanent employee working as a conductor and while he was on duty in bus No. MYF-2671, the vehicle was checked by the squad on 5-3-1985 before Stage No. 23, Kumaranahalli and it was found that 30 passengers out of 72 were without ticket. A charge-sheet was issued on four points, namely, that the conductor had failed to issue tickets to two passengers travelling from Harapanahalli to Nelagondanahalli; four passengers travelling from Harapanahalli to Arsikere; and 13 passengers travelling from Harapanahalli to Hikkingere cross despite collection of fare from each of the passengers and further failed to issue tickets to 11 other passengers travelling from Harapanahalli to Kumaranahalli despite collection of fare from two of them and had neither collected any fare from remaining passengers nor issued tickets to them. Also a penalty of Rs. 54A was recovered from the 9 passengers who had not paid the fare. A memo was issued on...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Janardhan Vs. Smt. N.S. Vinutha and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant393; 2002(3)KarLJ326
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This civil revision petition directed against the order dated 3-8-2000 passed on LA. No. V in Original Suit No, 2377 of 1993, is at the instance of the defendant in the suit, who is aggrieved by the order under whichthe application of the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.2. The suit was one for permanent injunction and it had progressed to the stage of leading evidence of the parties. At that stage, the plaintiffs came with an application to amend the plaint. The relief sought for by way of amendment was to add in prayer column in para 14 after the words 'judgment and decree':'declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and more particularly the property bearing No. 2/2 as described in the schedule to the plaint'.And also to add in para 14 after the words 'enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs':'grant mandatory injunction directing the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »