Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1003; ILR2002KAR5230
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioners are complaining about the police excesses in the case on hand. The first petitioner is an organisation and the second petitioner is an aggrieved person. The second petitioner is claiming compensation in the case on hand.2. It is stated in the petition that the second petitioner was working as a maidservant in the house of the third respondent. She was taken to police station by a man police constable on 4-5-1992 at about 10 a.m. for interrogation. She was not told the nature of complaint. She was not allowed to contact her husband. She was accused in vulgar language and asked to state as to what did she lift from the house of the third respondent. She was taken to Devaraj Police Station. She was made to sit alone in the upstairs of the police station till 7 p.m. Thereafter she was subjected to intense questioning by the police. Thereafter she came to know that the third respondent has lodged a false police complaint against the petitioner in the matt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ72
ORDERB. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on either side on I. A. No. I of 2001 and carefully perused the case papers including the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. I of 2001 as well as the statement of objections filed by the respondents by way of an affidavit of the 5th respondent.2. This is an application to condone the delay of about two years in filing the civil petition. The application is seriously opposed by the respondent.3. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. I of 2001 by the power of attorney holder to the appellant, it is stated that the appellant had engaged Sri S.K. Joshi, Advocate in the appeal R.F.A. No. 389 of 1994 and she was informed by her Advocate that she need not come to Bangalore and the progress of the case would be informed to her through letter. Thus, she was under the bona fide impression that the progress of the case would be informed to her and she need not worry about the same. But, unfortunat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ77
1. The, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, has submitted the proceedings in S.C. No. 64 of 1994 on the file of her Court for confirmation of sentence of death passed by the said Court for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Cri, A. No. 1050 of 2002 is filed by the accused who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 397 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer death for the offence of murder. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 11-4-2002 directed the Registry of High Court to intimate the convicted accused about the fact of reference through jailer and if he desires to prefer an appeal against conviction and sentence that he is free to do so and if such an appeal is filed either through Advocate or jailer, those proceedings be listed along with the present reference, Thus an appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ356; (2003)IIILLJ719Kant
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. The management being aggrieved by the order dated 20-3-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16162 of 1982 has preferred this writ appeal questioning the jurisdiction of the Court to alter the punishment rendered to the employee on a grave misconduct from one of dismissal to one of removal from service to enable the employee to receive his terminal benefits.2. The 1st respondent was working as Branch Manager, Nagpur Branch of Corporation Bank from 1976 to 1978. The management (Bank) found several irregularities and illegalities committed by the 1st respondent during his tenure of his office as Nagpur Branch Manager. A show-cause notice dated 29-1-1979 (Annexure-M) was issued pointing out the various irregularities and illegalities. The 1st respondent submitted his reply to the same. The management was not satisfied with the explanation and held a domestic enquiry. Even though sufficient opportunity was given to the 1st respondent, he deliberately d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(153)ELT295(Kar); ILR2004KAR1286
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the manufacture of hot-rolled coils and plates, is before me seeking to declare the Notification dated 1-3-2001 in No. 17/2001 as amended by Notification dated 26-4-2001 in No. 44/2001 (Annexure-A) ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to the extent in the description in terms of Serial No. 64A thereof making a distinction between the importers and manufacturers of pig iron or steel on the basis of process adopted and restricting its applicability only to the manufacturers of pig iron or steel using the blast furnace; and to direct the respondents to allow and permit the petitioner company to clear metallurgical coke to be imported by the company for manufacture of iron or steel on payment of basic customs duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem and to forthwith refund a sum of Rs. 4,59,80,394.00 together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum being differential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR5114; 2003(1)KarLJ261
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This is a public interest litigation and has been placed before us for final disposal.2. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.3. The petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 25-/-1991 at Annexure-A issued by the 1st respondent under Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), in according sanction of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 63 of Hulimavu Village, Bangalore South Taluk in favour of the 4th respondent for a total sum of Rs. 9,80,752/-.4. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier certain persons had challenged the same grant in favour of the 4th respondent.5. The learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 33372 of 1992 by an order dated 22nd September, 1997 dismissed the writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge passed the following order.--'Even assuming that the petitioners have locus standi what is required to be considered in this petition is whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant157
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners who are sugarcane growers of Athani Taluk have questioned the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 29-5-2002 (Annexure-B) (Published in the Karnataka Gazette Notification on 25-7-2002) issued by the first respondent in so far as it relates to sugarcane crop in Athani Taluka of Belgaum District and sought for quashing of the same. Further, in the alternative, the petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 not to enforce the impugned order against the sugarcane growers who have availed crop loan on or before 25-7-2002, urging various legal contentions.2. The petitioners are sugarcane growers having their agricultural lands within a distance of about 3 kms. from the Krishna River in Athani Taluk of Belgaum District and they have availed loan from third respondent-Bank. The Government of India formulated the national Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) called 'Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana' (in sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR298
ORDERGopala Gowda, J 1. In these two Writ Petitions the petitioner and respondent Central Bank of India is common. The grant of relief sought for in the second Writ Petition depends upon the result of the first Writ Petition. Hence, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. In W.P. No. 40026/95 the prayer is to quash the impugned order at Annexure-XX by which various penalties for each of the 21 charges have been imposed on the petitioner. The penalties comprise of Censure, reduction of increments and dismissal from service.3. The prayer in W.P. No. 11242/96 is to quash the communication at Annexure-D dated 26-3-96 by which the petitioner has been informed that he is not eligible for pension as a result of his dismissal from service. A further prayer is made to direct the respondent Bank to pay Compassionate Allowance equal to 2/3rd of the pension upto the date of his dismissal on the basis of the qualifying service in terms of Regulations 31 and 36 of the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ754; ILR2002KAR5129; 2003(3)KarLJ234
H.N. Narayan, J. 1. These two appeals by accused 1 and 2 are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, who by his judgment dated 10th May, 2002 convicted the appellants 1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for three more months and ordered the sentence to run concurrently.2. The Harohalli Police in Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, laid a charge-sheet against 10 accused persons alleging offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the IPC against accused 1 and 2 and under Section 114 read with Section 302 of the IPC against accused 3 to 9 and under Section 212 of the IPC against accused 10. It is alleged that on4-2-1995 at about 8 a.m. at Kollingan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]115CompCas828(Kar); 2003CriLJ351; ILR2002KAR5215; 2003(1)KarLJ437
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal, dated 12-8-2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintamani, in C.C. No. 219 of 1996 acquitting the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. The present complaint under consideration was filed on 12-12-1996 for the alleged offence committed by the respondent under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. According to the complainant in respect of certain monetary transaction, the respondent had issued two cheques dated 5-7-1996 and 9-7-1996 which when presented came to be dishonoured by the Bank for insufficiency of fund on 9-7-1996. It is also not in dispute that immediately after dishonour of the cheques, the petitioner had issued a notice to the respondent on 12-7-1996 to which a reply was given by the respondent on 30-7-1996. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!