Karnataka Court April 2002 Judgments
Sri N.B. Gungarakoppa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3311
ORDER1. The learned single Judge of this Court Narayan J. vide order dated 18-1-2002 has referred the following three points to the Division Bench for adjudication:-(1) Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter called 'Act' for short) is a bar for entertaining the petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C. ?(2) Whether the Courts entertaining the petitions under Section 438, Cr.P.C. can meticulously examine the material on record and attempt to find out a prima facie case under the provisions of the Act at this stage and(3) Whether only the High Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition of this nature filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. excluding the concurrent jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge ?The controversies with regard to the grant of anticipatory bail in relation to offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been an issue of serious debate despi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Syed Fareed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2857; II(2002)DMC398
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Addl. S.P.P., the learned Advocate who represents the respondent as also the learned Advocate E.R. Diwakar who has been appointed by us as Amicus Curiae Counsel. The Court had the benefit of hearing both the learned Advocates who have represented the respondent and the reason for this is because despite notice from this Court the respondent had remained unrepresented earlier. We, therefore, appointed learned Advocate E.R. Diwakar as Amicus Curiae. He has read the record, got ready with the case and he has advanced certain submission. In the meanwhile as often happens the accused has engaged his own learned Advocate and we have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Gachchinamath also on behalf of the respondent-accused.2. The learned additional S.P.P. is fully justified in his submission that the evidence of P.W. 1-Bismillabi who is the second wife of the accused is virtually flawless. Her evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence which...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendrappa and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2670; 2002(4)KarLJ122
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.2. The land in dispute is Sy. No. 5 measuring 5 acres of Kelagote Village, Jagalur Taluk. After coming into force of the Kamataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KPTCL Act') the alleged original grantees, Rangappa and Marappa, respondents 3 and 4 (now by their L.Rs) appear to have filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Act to declare the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioners as void being contrary to the prohibitory restrictions under the Act and the Land Grant Rules as well as a prayer for resumption and return of the land to the original grantees. This application was opposed by the petitioners inter alia contending that they have purchased the land from one Sukur Sab in the year 1971 and 1968 respectively to an extent o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Susheela B.S. Vs. Maruthi Ferto Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2865; ILR2002KAR3398
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.Y.N. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Hanumanthappa, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the respondent herein filed a complaintagainst the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is registered as P.C. No. 23/2000 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Hospet on the allegation that towards purchasing of fertilizer, the petitioner herein issued a cheque which was dishonoured when presented to the Bank and even after the service of statutory notice, the petitioner has not paid the amount. The Court has taken cognizance of the offence and directed issue of process of the petitioner. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. to transfer the case from the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Hospet to the Court at Tumkur on the allegation that the petitioner is reside...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.S. Barna Vs. C.B. Ramamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2859; ILR2002KAR2360; 2002(4)KarLJ423
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J. 1. Petitioner is a practising Advocate in Bangalore. He has challenged the order of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (passed in C.C. No. 14833 of 1996), who has rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. The petitioner who preferred to argue his own case by wearing robes has again raided an old controversy settled by the Bench of this Court in T. Venkanna v. High Court of Mysore and Anr., 1973 (1) Mys. L.J. 143 : AIR 1973 Mys. 127I shall shortly take up that question, alter considering the legality and correctness of the impugned order. 2. The petitioner has narrated in his petition the circumstances under which he was compelled to make the application under Section 319of the Cr. P.C. It is his case that he filed two private complaints before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, in the year 1992, in P.C.R. Nos. 27 and 30 of 1992 against one C.B. Ramamurthy, alleging the offences punishabl...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Gowdar Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC559; 2002ACJ1638; ILR2002KAR2501; 2002(5)KarLJ216
OPINIONTirath S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal is before us on a reference made in the following circumstances:In Gulam Khader and Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr., 2001(1) Kar. L.J. 340, ILR 2000 Kar. 4416 a Division Bench of this Court held that a higher multiplier would be applicable for determination of loss of dependency in claims arising out of motor accidents that have occurred after the commencement of Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1994. For claims arising out of accidents prior to the said amendment, the multiplier could not go beyond 16 as held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors., . Another Division Bench of this Court comprising H.N. Tilhari and K.R. Prasad Rao, JJ., expressed doubts about the correctness of the said view. Their Lordships were of the opinion that there was no real justification for limiting the benefit of the higher multiplier to claims that arise out...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Susheela B.S. Vs. Maruthi Ferto Chemicals Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ401
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. Heard Sri A.Y.N. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A. Hanumanthappa, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is registered as P.C. No. 23 of 2000 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hospet on the allegation that towards purchasing of fertilizer, the petitioner herein issued a cheque which was dishonoured when presented to the Bank and even after the service of statutory notice, the petitioner has not paid the amount. The Court has taken cognizance of the offence and directed issue of process to the petitioner. The petitioner filed this petition underSection 407 of the Cr. P.C. to transfer the case from the tile of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Yemakka and anr. Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2728; 2002(6)KarLJ506
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 23-8-2001 in Rev. P. No. 103/1999-2000 affirming the order dated 29-1-1999 passed in R. A. No. 39/96-97 passed by the 2nd respondent. Further, he sought for a direction to the respondents to enter their names in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and issue RTCs and other records to the petitioners. They also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of occupancy rights which is available on the record of the 1st respondent.2. The petitioners' late husband one Sri Muninagappa had purchased an agricultural land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 68/1 (old) and New No. 133/1 situated at Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South (Addl. Taluk), Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, under the registered sale deed dated 22-4-1950. The husban...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Shivaram Vs. B.M. Nagappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant18
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Though this matter has come up for admission, by consent of the parties, the same is taken up for hearing. Accordingly, I heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. The petitioner-defendant has assailed the legality and validity of the order dt. 13-2-2001 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Madikeri, on LA. VI in O.S. No. 204/96.3. After hearing both the sides on the application, LA. VI, filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the Trial Court allowed the amendment introducing the additional relief on facts already on record.4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent plaintiff has filed LA. for temporary injunction in O.S. 204/96. After hearing both the sides and considering the pleadings of both the parties, the Trial Court has refused to grant the interim order as sought by the respondent-plaintiff and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Against the said order, t...
Tag this Judgment!Mercury Press Vs. Ameen Shacoor and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 were the petitioners and petitioners 1 and 2 were respondents 1(1) and 1(5) in HRC No. 10568 of 1994, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Respondents 7 to 13 herein were the respondents 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 1(7), 1(8), 1(9) and 1(10) respectively in the said eviction petition. For convenience, respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as 'landlords' and the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 13 will together be referred as 'tenants'.2. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenants (the L.Rs of A. Rajagopal who was running Mercury Press in the petition schedule premises) under Section 21(1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'old HRC Act' or 'old Act'). The petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises, measuring more than 14 sq. nits. The said petition was allowed by order dated 17-11-2001 under proviso (h) to Section 21(1) of the said Act. Feeling aggr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »