Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2755; 2002(5)KarLJ237
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. Sri Ajit J. Gunjal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 409 of the IPC is notattracted in this case on the ground that he is not a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the IPC and also under Section 162 of the Co-operative Societies Act. He further submitted that the material evidence was not considered by the Courts below. He further submitted that the petitioner had already paid the entire amount said to have been misappropriated by him to the Society and no loss is caused to the Society. Therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted. In the alternative, as the offence does not come under Section 409 at the maximum the offence may come under Section 406 of the IPC which is not punishable with life imprisonment. In any event, if the Court were to hold that the petitioner has committed the offence and as it comes under Section 406 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR3221; 2002(5)KarLJ506; (2003)IILLJ775Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner, an employee of the Corporation Bank is challenging An-nexure-A, an order passed by the Corporation Bank ordering his removal from the services of the Bank. Petitioner also challenges Annexures-D and E orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the reviewing authority confirming the removal of the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed in the Bank as a clerk and was promoted as an officer in the year 1994. He was working at Manipal in the year 1998. He was on deputation to Udupi for a few days. During his deputation to Udupi, the Vigilance Officer visited the Manipal Branch and checked certain records in the absence of the petitioner. On the basis of the vigilance check, petitioner was kept under suspension for certain misconduct on his part. Petitioner states that the allegations against him were at the instance of some of the officers and customers of the Bank who were not in good terms with the petitioner. Petitioner states that thereafter he perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR3205; 2002(4)KarLJ132
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J. 1. The petitioners who are accused 5 and 6 before the IV Additional Chief Municipal Magistrate, Bangalore, have sought for quashing of the charge-sheet filed for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC in C.C. No. 8257 of 2001.2. The brief facts are as follows:The Police, Ashoknagar Police Station, Bangalore City filed the charge-sheet through COD against the petitioners and four others alleging that the petitioners and four others being the Directors of M/s. Synergy Finance Exchange Limited, Chonnai, opened a Branch at No. 107, Raheja Plaza, Commercial Street, Bangalore, with an announcement to the general public for investment of money on term deposits, for higher rate of interest. In pursuant of the said announcement, C.W. 1-K. Kadhakrishna invested Rs. 26,000/- on 15-11-1996 and deposited in RD for one year on 2-12-1996 amounting to Rs. 12,000/-, C.W. 2-Narahari Shastry deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 14-9-1997 and another sum o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002ACJ1828; ILR2002KAR1864; 2002(3)KarLJ337
ORDER1. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 21-9-1999 passed in M.V.C. No. 459 of 1995 and the same has been referred by thy Division Bench to the Larger Bench by order dated 21-9-2001. As per order of the Chief Justice dated 14-3-2002, this reference is before us on 18-3-2002.2. The facts leading to the order of reference are that on 7-1-1995 that while returning from Bidar to Wanmar Palli near Keppikari Cross, the jeep driven by one Uttam Kumar collided with a lorry coming in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of the accident Uttam Kumar sustained severe injuries. Thereafter, Uttam Kumar was admitted into hospital and he, for his treatment, incurred expenses. A claim petition in M.V.C. No. 459 of 1995 came to be filed. After issuing the notice and hearing the parties, the Additional MACT, Bidar awarded compensation of Rs. 36,250-00 with costs and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant324; 2002(4)KarLJ299
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated 18-8-2001 passed by the Court below on I.A. No. IV filed under Order 21, Rules 58 and 59 of the CPC for raising the attachment of moveables.2. The respondent-Bank filed the suit O.S. No. 782 of 1989 against one M/s. Shakti Marine Engineering Works for recovery of Rs. 24,219.50 with interest and costs. The present petitioner though, had nothing to do with the suit, impleaded himself in the said suit as third defendant. The respondent-Bank on the strength of the hypothecation of the machineries of M/s. Shakti Marine Engineering Works obtained an order of attachment before judgment. On 18-6-1992 the suit came to be decreed. The present petitioner did not take any steps to raise the attachment before judgment of the moveables of M/s. Shakti Marine Engineering Works during the pendency of the suit O.S. No. 782 of 1989. Nor did he question the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 782 of 1989, in appeal. How...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR862]; ILR2002KAR3352; 2002(6)KarLJ412; (2002)IIILLJ376Kant
1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,79,230/-has been awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case the deposit of the amount awarded is not made within a period of 30 days.2. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sabhahit submitted that although he has challenged the impugned order even in regard to the quantum of compensation determined by the same, yet he would be satisfied in case the challenge in the appeal is examined only to the extent the order does not levy a penalty. He urged that the Commissioner had framed an issue on whether or not a penalty was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. While deciding the same the Commissioner had declined to levy a penalty in just two words viz., 'no penalty'. This, according to the learned Counsel, was not a satisfactory method of dealing with the question whether or not the facts of the case warranted levy of a penal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2002)ACC353
ORDER1. This M.F.A. is filed against the judgment and award dated 31.9.1999 passed in M.V.C. No. 459/1995 and the same has been referred by the Division Bench to the Larger Bench by order dated 21.9.2001. As per order of the Chief Justice dated 14.3.2002, this reference is before us on 18.3.2002.2. The facts leading to the order of reference are that on 7.1.1995 that while returning from Bidar to Wanmar Palli near Keppikari Cross, the jeep driven by one Uttam Kumar collided with a lorry coming in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of the accident Uttam Kumar sustained severe injuries. Thereafter, Uttam Kumar was admitted into hospital and he, for his treatment, incurred expenses. A claim petition in M.V.C. No. 459/ 1995 came to be filed. After issuing the notice and hearing the parties, the Addl. MACT, Bidar awarded compensation of Rs. 36,250.00 with costs and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2971; 2002(5)KarLJ282
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is a respondent's revision filed being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No. VI in E.E. Misc. No. 1 of 2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Molakalmuru permitting to withdraw the election petition.2. The brief facts are as follows.--The defeated candidate, namely, H. Maranna presented the election petition under Section 15 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to declare the election of second respondent-G. Ramappa to the post of membership of Devarahalli Gram Panchayat from Devareddihalli Constituency is void and to declare him a duly elected candidate. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 before the Trial Court have filed objection statement contending that the petition is not maintainable as the election petition is not duly attested by the petitioner and also contended that the grounds urged in the election petition are not sustainable, While the proceedings were pending, the defeated candidate Maranna filed LA. No. VI under Order 23, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(5)KarLJ119
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The first petitioner-college and its students, petitioners 2 to 10, have filed these petitions praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure-F, dated 5-5-2001, issued by the first respondent insofar as it relates to refusing approval of the candidates mentioned at S1. Nos. 19 to 28.2. The first petitioner-college imparts education leading to B.Ed. degree at K.G.F., Kolar District from the year 1974. The college is affiliated to the Bangalore University. After coming into force of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'NCTEA'), the first petitioner-college was recognised by the N.C.T.E. The affiliation was granted by the Bangalore University by its letter dated 26-12-2000. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka continued the affiliation as sanctioned by the University under Section 53(9) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 and determined the intake of students for the first petitioner-co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant330; [2003]115CompCas695(Kar); ILR2002KAR4007; 2002(4)KarLJ565
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioners are all growers of sugarcane in Belgaum District coming within the notified area of the third respondent, the Raibag Co-operative Sugar Factory (Limited) and within the reserved area meant for supplying sugarcane to the third respondent-factory as required under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 ('the Control Order' for short).2. The petitioners are under legal obligation to supply sugarcane grown by them to the third respondent-factory.3. The petitioners in fact have supplied their produce to the third respond respondent-sugarcane factory as required under the provisions of the Control Order, but having not received payment for the same in accordance with the price fixed under the Control Order and having petitioned the first and second respondent authorities for taking action to ensure realisation of their price for the sugarcane supplied by them to the third respondent-factory and having failed in their attempts, are before this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!