Karnataka Court June 2002 Judgments
Smt. Bhavani Vs. D.C. Doddarangaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3814; 2002(5)KarLJ516
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. against the order of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 6717 of 1997. The petitioner is the complainant. She prosecuted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. against the respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The Trial Court after holding valid trial, passed the judgment of conviction and imposed sentence of fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 12,000/- is directed to be payable as compensation to the complainant. In this regard, the complainant (revision petitioner) contends that sentence of fine imposed is grossly inadequate and does not commensurate with the nature of crime and the value thereof.3. The complainant's case is that a cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/- was issued which came to be dishonoured and thus it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Foundation of Southern States Goods Vehicles Owners Association and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC181
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1.The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following prayers:(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other direction to quash the Notification No. HID 44 TMA Annexure E-1 in SLI Items 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31 and S. No. III Items 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 28 and 30 only so far relating to items in the Notification vide Annexure-'B'.(ii) ISSUE any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.2. The petitioners state that the Notification dated 3.7.2000 issued by the first respondent is unsustainable in law. According to the petition averments, the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the offences, penalties and procedures. Section 177 is a general provision governing levy of fine. According to the petitioners, Annexure 'A' runs counter to Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. Heard the Counsel on either sides and perused the ma...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Vasudeva Tatachar Vs. State Bank of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ437; (2002)IIILLJ1029Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. The petitioner, a retired official of the State Bank of Mysore is before this Court seeking for the following prayers:'(a) Quash the order dated 6-10-1999 under Annexure-C to the writ petition insofar as it directs recovery from the petitioner at the rate of 50% of the provisional pension by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari and direct the respondents to pay full provisional pension to the petitioner and also refund to the petitioner the amounts illegally recovered pursuant to Annexure-C from the provisional pension payable to the petitioner together with interest at 18% per annum from the dates the respective pension amounts became due to the petitioner until dates of payment. (b) Quash the order dated 5-11-1999 issued by the 1st respondent in No. Nil (under Annexure-E to the writ petition) and the order bearing No. P and S/SB, dated 5-11-1999 (under Annexure-F to the writ petition) by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari and direct the respon...
Tag this Judgment!O.V. Narasimha Setty and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4968; 2003(2)KarLJ432
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of certain extent of land in Survey Nos. 9, 10 and 11 situate at Vaddarpalya Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and land in Survey Nos. 85, 86/1 and 86/2 situated at Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said lands were proposed for acquisition by preliminary notification dated 29-12-1988 under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1976'). This notification was followed by a final notification dated 16-9-1997 issued under Section 19 of the Act. These notifications were challenged by the petitioners in W.P. Nos, 37735 to 37743 of 1997 before this Court. This Court dismissed the said writ petitions by order dated 17-6-1998 reserving liberty to the petitioners to work out their rights, if any, under the Government Order No. HUD 341 MMX 95, dated 17-11-1995. The order passed by this Court in the above said writ petitions was affirmed by the Division Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. M. Babu S/O Manikyam and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3604
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. When this appeal first came up for admission on 11 -3-2002 we heard the learned Additional S.P.P. who had advanced his submission that the act of the accused has resulted In an injury to the complainant that a sharp object was used and that even if the conviction is not under Section 307, IPC that the conviction for some lesser offence is very necessary. His submission was that in those of the cases an offence of some seriousness is alleged and merely because the trial Court finds that the offence of that gravity has not been made out, that it would not be correct for the trial Court to record an order of acquittal because that would constitute a miscarriage of justice. The learned Additional S.P.P. only submitted that the trial Courts are required in such instances to pass correct orders even if at the trial it is disclosed that the injury was a minor one and that without considering the important aspect of the law where a lesser offence is made out, recording an ...
Tag this Judgment!Petkar Shankar Rao Vs. T. Pushpa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3529; 2002(4)KarLJ467
ORDERA.M. Farooq, J. 1. This is a revision petition filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed in H.R.C. No. 10164 of 1992 on the file of the learned Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore directing eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises.2. The brief facts of the case are the respondents filed the eviction petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking possession of the premises in question for their bona fide use and occupation for running a printing press. The petitioner filed objections to the eviction petition.3. On the earlier occasion, by an order dated 30-9-1994 the Trial Court dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred H.R.R.P. No. 1877 of 1994 before this Court which was allowed on 18-7-2000 and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court upholding the bona fides of the petitioners and holding that the landlords require the petition schedule premises for their b...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Krishna and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3304; 2002(5)KarLJ1
1. These appeals are filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 26427 to 26431 of 2001 and connected cases dated 19th July, 2001, wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions observing that the petitioners have no right whatsoever to question the correctness or otherwise of the endorsement issued by the respondents dated 15-12-2000.2. The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short 'BWSSB') in 1998, took a decision to fill up 120 posts of Sanitary Workers for the purpose of cleaning and maintenance of the various works of the Board and the Employment Exchange sent the names of 1,200 candidates as desired. The appellants-petitioners appeared for interview, and thereafter, the Selection Committee selected 120 persons inclusive of the appellants-petitioners but no appointment orders were issued. On the application of one S.G. Krishna, a Social Worker, an endorsement was issued by BWSSB on 15-12-2002 and the appellants-petitioners came to ...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Chandrashekara Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ5089
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The facts of this case are rather startling not only because it is a triple murder case but because the three victims are the wife, her mother and the sister of the wife, all three being adult women. What adds to the aspect of further concern is the fact that the wife Bhuwaneshwari was pregnant at the time when she was murdered as is evident from the medical evidence on record and it is virtually a situation in which a 4th life has been lost. Obviously, these areaspects of which any Court would take a very serious view moreso, since the prosecution alleges that the accused was at the relevant time an Army Jawan stationed somewhere in the north near Jammuthavi. From the material that is before the Court, it appears that the murders took place on the night of 20-8-1997, and the allegation as far as the accused is concerned is that, he had obtained the requisite permission from his Unit to visit his home which is at Rangasamudra village, Somwarpet Taluk. The prosecutio...
Tag this Judgment!Subashchand JaIn Vs. Ganapathi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1005; ILR2002KAR3355; 2002(4)KarLJ433
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This appeal by the injured claimant in a motor accident is for enhancement of the quantum of compensation in respect of the injury suffered by him in the accident.2. The claimant/appellant was a passenger in a tempo which was involved in the accident. The claimant suffered extensive injuries particularly as resulted in fracture of right femur, fracture of right zeugmatic complex, fracture of nasal bridge, fracture of Noso eluamoidal, fracture of mandible and other injuries. He has also suffered injuries to his face. The injured appellant underwent hospitalisation for a long period of 6 months and had to undergo operations in respect of the fracture to his leg. A steel rod has been fixed and for removal of the same he had to undergo further operation. He incurred considerable medical expenses. The claimant was a businessman doing business in manganese ore.3. The Tribunal after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the period of hospita...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Siddeshwara Housing Co-operative Society Limited Vs. Ashok Lingana ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ578
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'). The facts,of the case are:Respondents 1 and 2 filed applications to the petitioner-Society to admit them as members of the Society. The said applications were returned objecting that they are not in the proper form. As against this communication respondents 1 and 2 preferred appeals before the 3rd respondent under Section 105-A of the Act. The Assistant' Registrar allowed the appeals declaring that respondents 1 and 2 are admitted as members of the Society under Section 16(6) of the Act. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in these petitions.2. Sri Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 16(6) of the Act has no application to the facts of this case, as there is no notification as required under Sub-section (5) of Section 16 and therefore, the impugned orders are liabl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »