Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2154; ILR2002KAR2213; 2002(4)KarLJ334
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The petitioner/accused are the undertrial prisoners in S.C. No. 566 of 1999 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 307, 323, 324, 342 and 428 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 read with Section 3 of the Arms Act. During the course of trial it appears that one of the defence Counsel Sri Hasmath Pasha filed retirement memo making some personal allegations against the Special Public Prosecutor. Under the directions of this Court, the trial of this case was held on day-to-day basis and the outer limit to dispose off this case was fixed to be by the end of March 2002. The defence Counsel withdrew his participation from 23-11-2001. Thereafter no progress has been made in recording of the evidence, as some of the petitioners/accused were not represented by Counsel. 2. The present petitioner-accused submitted a grievance petition to the Hon'ble Chief Just...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC393; 2002LC516(Karnataka); 2002(144)ELT506(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant is a manufacturer of ceramic glazed tiles falling under Chapter 69 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has a unit at Kunigal, falling within the jurisdiction of Second Respondent.2. The appellant sells glazed tiles all over the country in packages. The maximum retail price (MRP), is fixed by the appellant depending on the local sales tax, entry tax, cost of transportation, degree of competition and other relevant circumstances. As a consequence, the MRP declared by the appellant on its packages varies from State to State. The appellants stamps/prints only one retail price on the package depending on the State/Region in which it is sent for sale; and after deducting the prescribed abatement from such declared MRP, it pays the applicable excise duty.3. Some Manufacturers, instead of declaring the maximum retail price applicable to the particular area/State, on the package, declare several maximum retail prices that may be applicable to different...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2989
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order of the Executing Court in Execution Petition No. 40 of 1999.2. The revision petitioner is no other than the judgment-debtor 2(a) in the execution proceedings. The respondents herein are the L.Rs of the decree-holders. The decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1968 sought to be executed in Ex. P. No. 40 of 1999 by the decree-holders and the decree-holder filed an application under Section 47. A common order was passed on 31-5-2001. The Executing Court directed judgment-debtors 2(a) to 2(d) to receive amount of Rs. 1,500/- deposited by the decree-holders in execution petition and further directed all the judgment-debtors before the Court below to execute jointly a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, failing which the Court Commissioner will be appointed for the said purpose. Actual possession of the property will be handed over...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2699; 2002(5)KarLJ137
ORDERManjula Chellur, J. 1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order of the learned Judge in execution petition on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hirekerur. 2. In brief the facts that lead to the filing of the revision petition are as under: One Husainsab Goususab Ellapur filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 194 measuring 11 acres 15 guntas situate at Chikkounte Village of Hirekerur Taluk against Krishnarao Sheshagirirao Sarathi. It was decreed on 24-9-1973 directing the said Krishnarao to execute the registered sale deed after receiving the balance of consideration. Subsequent to the said decree Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force. The land in question was tenanted land, therefore, the Tahsildar, Hirekerur, passed an order vesting the land with the Government. The entries in the record of rights also came to be changed accordingly in the name of the Government. By that time the revision petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2531; 2002(5)KarLJ194
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate and the learned State Public Prosecutor on merits. Though the cause list does not show the appearance of the learned State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent, we had earlier directed him to take notice which he has done. 2. It is unfortunate that the petitioner's learned Advocate had to file a contempt proceeding in the present case but the learned Advocate points out to us that it was necessary also from another point of view viz., that there are numerous instances when parties obtain anticipatory bail orders and either the police or the Trial Court refuses to implement them straightaway. For instance, it was brought to our notice that if procedural obstacles are put up, that the whole purpose of the bail order gets frustrated insofar as by default the beneficiary viz., the accused has either been taken into custody or remains in custody. In the present instance, because the learned Magistrate rejected...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR1896; 2002(4)KarLJ59
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Facts in these two writ petitions and the questions of law raised are more or less identical. Therefore, they are heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. For narration of facts, I would be relying upon statements made by the petitioner in W.P. No. 5761 of 2001.3. Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher working in a school managed and controlled by the first respondent-Vidyavardhaka Sangha, a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The society is running several educational institutions in and around Bijapur District.4. The second respondent is the school run by the first respondent-society. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, the second respondent-school was known as V.V. Sangha Primary School (English and Kannada Medium). After introduction of the Pre-University Classes, it has been redesignated as V.B. Darbar Pre-University College.5. Petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2002)DMC798; ILR2002KAR3384; 2002(4)KarLJ285
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. This writ petition is by the father of the respondent challenging the order dated 29-11-2001 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in O.S. No. 113 of 2001 on I.A. No. V.2. The facts of the case are as follows.--In a petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as against the mother of the respondent for dissolution of the marriage before the Family Court at Pune, the Family Court at Pune, after hearing both the parties, by its order dated 15-9-1994 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the mother of the respondent herein under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. While dissolving the marriage, the Family Court at Pune has awarded a sum of Rs. 800/- per month as maintenance in favour of the respondent. Subsequent to the order passed by the Family Court, Pune, the respondent herein has filed original suit before the Principal Civil Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, claiming maintenance of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2151
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The parties to the lis are governed by the provisions of Karnataka Education Act. 1983. ('Act' for short) read with Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recognition of Primary and Secondary Schools), Rules, 1990 ('Rules' for short).2. Petitioner, who has suffered an order of suspension of his Educational carrier, and was allowed to attend the classes only on the condition that his parents/guardian would give a necessary undertaking for good behaviour on or before 16-3-1998 and after leaving the first respondent college for good, is before this Court for the following reliefs. They are :I. To quash the impugned order dated 3-3-1998 vide Ref.B/504/98/YDC dated 3-3-1998 passed by the respondent vide Annexure R. II. For a direction to the respondent to return the amounts paid by him for prosecuting his carrier in the respondent College after deducting the tuition fee for the Ist and IInd year B.D.S. course i.e. deducting Rs. 1,03,850/- out of Rs. 7.5 lakhs i.e. Rs. 6,46,150...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant264; 2003(2)KarLJ607
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. The parties to the lis are governed by the provisions of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 ('Act' for short) read with the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recognition of Primary and Secondary Schools) Rules, 1990 ('Rules' for short). 2. Petitioner, who has suffered an order of suspension of his educational career, and was allowed to attend the classes only on the condition that his parents/guardians would give a necessary undertaking for good behaviour on or before 16-3-1998, and after leaving the first respondent-college for good, is before this Court for the following reliefs. They are:I. To quash the impugned order dated 3-3-1998 vide Ref. B/504/98/YDC, dated 3-3-1998 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-R. II. For a direction to the respondent to return the amounts paid by him for prosecuting his career in the respondent-College after deducting the tuition fee for the I and II year B.D.S. Course i.e., deducting Rs. 1,03,850/- out of Rs. 7.5 lakhs i.e., Rs. 6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR3599; 2002(3)KarLJ650
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in this petition under Section 115 of the CPC seeks to challenge the order dated 7-11-2001 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Kundapura on I.A. No. IX in O.S. No. 808 of 1987.2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed application I.A. No. IX under Order 26, Rule 9 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC for appointment of Commissioner to visit the suit schedule property, note the details of work done and to submit a report. The suit as originally filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration and permanent injunction. Later on the suit came to be amended by alleging encroachment of plaintiffs property and the claim for possession of the encroached property was also added to the original prayer of declaration and permanent injunction. By I.A. No. IX the petitioner-plaintiff sought for the appointment of the Commissioner to ascertain the exact extent of encroachment by the defendant. The Court below declined to grant the prayer in I.A. No. IX H...
Tag this Judgment!