Karnataka Court October 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Inspector of Excise, Bangalore Rural District and anr. Vs. D. Venk ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ478
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This revision is filed against the order dated 17-9-1999 in Cri. Misc.A. No. 12 of 1996 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.2. The petitioners are the State Authorities. The respondent is the owner of the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. MES 6602. The vehicle was caught while illegally transporting the contraband non-duty paid liquor. The confiscation proceedings came to be initiated. The authorised officer issued notice to the owner of the vehicle and after giving opportunity passed the orders of confiscation holding that the vehicle has been put in use for illegal transportation of the contraband illicit liquor. In appeal, the Sessions Judge reversed the order of confiscation and directed of release the vehicle in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed by the State.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent in support of the order of the Sessions Judge contended ...
A.U. Valiulla Vs. A.V. Shafiulla
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ507
B. Padmaraj, J.1. None appears for the appellant. There is absolutely no representation on the side of the appellant when the matter has reached for orders on I.A. No. 1 of 2002. Under the circumstances, therefore, left with no other alternative, I myself carefully perused the case papers including the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 1 of 2002 in order to find out whether on the face of it, there appears any sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.2. Later, the learned Counsel for the appellant has also been heard in the matter. He contended that the daughter of the appellant who is suffering from heart ailment, had been taken for treatment to several hospitals and under the circumstances, he could not contact his Advocate before the lower Appellate Court and that it is only in the 2nd week of March 2002, he came to know about the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court and immediately thereafter he contacted his Advocate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›