Karnataka Court December 2002 Judgments
Lokappa Marabasappa Koravi and anr. Vs. Marabasappa Huchhappa Koravi a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC186
R. Gururajan, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2002 passed in O.S. No. 59/1986. Facts in brief are as under. 2. Plaintiffs are the sons of the first defendant. They filed a suit for partition and for declaration before the Trial Court. A declaration was sought to the effect that auction sale of the suit schedule property bearing CTS No. 2441 in Execution Case No. 113/1997 is not binding on them. Second defendant on an earlier occasion filed a suit for recovery of money from the first defendant (father of the plaintiffs) on the basis of a pronote executed by the first defendant. The suit ended in a compromise. Decree was drawn, Decree was executed in Execution No. 143/1983. The suit property was brought to sale and the third defendant purchased the property in Court auction. Plaintiffs were not parties to the earlier suit. According to the present plaintiffs, their father contracted debts for illegal and immoral purposes and it ...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Ananda Reddy Vs. L.N. Basappa Since Deceased by His Lrs. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: ILR2004KAR649
ORDERSreedhar Rao, J.1. This revision is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikkaballapur in S.C.No. 153/98.2. The petitioner is the defendant against whom the impugned judgment and decree is passed. Before the Trial Court, the defendant is served. He has appeared but has not filed written statement. The Trial Court passed the decree on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the documentary materials produced placing reliance on the ruling in ILR 2001 KAR 546. Although the defendant has not filed written statement, the Trial Court cannot do away with the procedure of recording evidence. The defendant will have a right to participate in the further proceedings by cross - examining the plaintiff and plaintiff witnesses. The position would be different if the defendant after service of notice does not appear at all and placed exparte.3. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. AISHA BI AND ANR. v. SHAMSHER KHAN ILR 20...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Althaf Vs. Farida Abba Khasim (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1599; (2003)IIILLJ158Kant
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel who represent the contesting parties. The main submission canvassed by the appellant's learned counsel is that the authority was wrong in having awarded only 60% of the aggregate compensation that had been computed in so far as the finding and evidence clearly indicates that the appellant was incapable of carrying on with the machine job after the amputation and further more that he was in fact discharged from service. Reliance is placed on two decisions, the first of them reported in 1965-II-LLJ-20 (Mys) wherein the Division Bench has very clearly applied the test as to whether the injured was capable of carrying on any other lesser form of employment and in the absence of evidence to establish this that he has lost his job as a result of the accident that he would still be entitled to 100% compensation and not the percentage amount. The same view has been expressed by the Bombay High Court in the decision reported in 1966-II-LLJ-...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Althaf Vs. Farida Abba Khasim and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: I(2004)ACC766
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsels who represent the contesting parties. The main submission canvassed by the appellant's learned Counsel is that the authority was wrong in having awarded only 60 per cent of the aggregate compensation that had been computed insofar as the finding and evidence clearly indicates that the appellant was incapable of carrying on with the machine job after the amputation and furthermore that he was in fact discharged from service. Reliance is placed on two decisions, the first of them reported in 1964 (2) Mys LJ 85 wherein the Division Bench has very clearly applied the test as to whether the injured was capable of carrying on any other lesser form of employment and in the absence of evidence to establish this that he has lost his job as a result of the accident that he would still be entitled to 100 per cent compensation and not the percentage amount. The same view has been expressed by the Bombay High Court in the decision reported in A...
Tag this Judgment!Bishrya Appanna Kale and ors. Vs. State Through Police Inspector
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ266
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for both the parties.2. These four criminal revision petitions arise under similar groundsin which the petitioners are the same and the offences alleged againstthem are also under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC.3. In C.C. Nos. 14 and 16 of 2000 and 15 of 2001, the petitioners were charge-sheeted for three incidents which had taken place on 1-5-1998, 23-9-1999 and 12-4-1999 and were convicted to undergo R.I. for 21/2 years and a fine of Rs. 2,500/-.4. In C.C. No. 291 of 2000 they were charge-sheeted for the said offences on the allegation that on 677-3-1997 they committed the said offences and the Trial Court convicted them for 21/2 years and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,500/-. These convictions were modified by the Appellate Court as indicated below.5. In these criminal revision petitions the petitioners have not questioned the validity and correctness of the judgment of both the Courts below holding them guilty under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Madala Janakiram Vs. Delhi Special Police Establishment, Bangalore Bra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ31
1. The only but substantial question of law that arises for consideration in these writ appeals is whether the learned Single Judge could reverse the finding of the judgment rendered earlier by another learned Single Judge while exercising powers under Section 151 of the CPC?2. The appellant was an accused along with others in Crime Nos. 19(A)/90-BLR, 20(A)/90-BLR and 21(A)/90-BLR. The case was registered by the Delhi Police Establishment (CBI) for the alleged offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (old Act).3. The allegation against the appellant and others related to the alleged inflated statement of stock and accommodation bills which werediscounted by a company by M/s. Asian Wire Ropes Limited. The offence is alleged to have taken place during the years 1986 to 1988.4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition Nos. 12287 to 12289 of 1993 seeking to quash the First Info...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaram Dattatraye and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1775; ILR2003KAR2838
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. Crl.A.No. 479/2001 is filed by the appellants-accused Nos.1 , 3 and 4 against the judgment of the Trial Court rendered by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum in S.C.No. 8./1994 dated 17.3.2001 convicting accused -1, 3 and 4 for an offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, the accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one year. Under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C.., the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Crl.R.C. No.1/2001 is filed by the petitioner-the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore under Section 318 of Criminal Procedure Code on the judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.3.2001 with respect to accused No.2 respondent No.2. At the stage of recording the statement unde...
Tag this Judgment!Hellios Food Additives Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC47(Kar)
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Once again, this Court is faced with the familiar dispute that arises under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, relating to classification of a particular item. The petitioner-company manufactures a product under the brand name 'Lite-N-Soft Gel'. According to the material available before us, this product is used exclusively as a bakery product and is known in the trade as a cake improver. It provides sponginess to the cake, improves its consistency and the shelf life. The petitioners had contended that it should be categorised under item 10A under Part 'C' of the Second Schedule under the head of 'chemicals of all types'. It did surprise us slightly that this contention was taken up before the department initially because the petitioners have filed several reports and certificates before us and these unequivocally indicate that this gel essentially consists of an emulsifier which is really a vegetable based fat. Whatever be the reason for it, perhaps as pointed...
Tag this Judgment!Doddananjappa and ors. Vs. the Sub-registrar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant205
S.B. Majage, J.1. The appellants/petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24-3-2001 passed in P. Misc. No. 5/97 since their request to permit them to sue as paupers, has been turned down by the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.2. It is the case of the appellants that except the suit schedule property, they are not having any property worth Rs. 1,000/-either movable or immovable, including wearing apparel, and even they could not raise loan on the security of the suit property for the purpose of paying Court fee and hence, sought permission to sue as paupers. However, the respondents disputed the said claim on the ground that the appellants have suppressed material facts and the properties held by them, though they have several properties in and around Yelachahalli village besides house properties and, even otherwise, the petition filed by appellants is not in conformity with Order XXXIII, Rule 2 of CPC and against the mandatory provis...
Tag this Judgment!Mugappa Vs. Smt. Muniyamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC188
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The revision filed against the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge passed in Crl. R.P. No. 21/1999.2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent aged about 82 years. The wife filed an application Under Section 125 seeking maintenance in Crl. Mis. 37/ 1992 on the file of J. M. F. C. K. G. F. The Trial Court dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed the revision before the Sessions Judge. In revision, the Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Trial Court and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- annually. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed.3. The facts of the case reveal that as on the date of the petitioner before the Trial Court, the petitioner was aged about 60 years. The respondent was aged about 55 years. According to the cause title in this petition. According to the cause title in this petition, the petitioner is aged about 75 years. In evidence, it is said that the respondent herein a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »