Karnataka Court June 2002 Judgments
Kudala Sangameshwara Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant401; ILR2002KAR3522; [2002]128STC55(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Though this petition is posted for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioner in this petition is a proprietary concern carrying on business in exhibition of cinematography shows. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 21st January 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure 'S' passed by the third respondent-Entertainment Tax Officer, Sindhanur, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of exemption from payment of entertainment tax for a period of three years from the date of holding the first cinematography show in his newly constructed theatre on 14th August 2000.3. Few facts which are not in serious dispute and which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as hereunder :--4. The petitioner had constructed a cine...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Narayana Vs. R.V. Devaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant397
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The election to Karnataka Legislative Assembly was held on 5-9-1999. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 11 contested from 81 Chamarajpet Constituency. The 13th respondent Returning Officer declared the result as first respondent got elected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking declarations that (a) the declaration of result of first respondent as null and void; (b) that first respondent has committed corrupt practices under Sections 123(2) and 123(6) read with Sections 100(1)(b) and 100 (1)(d)(ii) of Representation of the People Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); (c) that Section 61 (A) of the Act and the Rules under Chapter II of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 as unconstitutional; (d) that the elections under electronic Voting Machine is null and void and to direct re-polling to the aforesaid Constituency and to award costs.2. The first respondent has filed elaborate statement of objections denying the petition averments and ...
Tag this Judgment!K.W. Ganapathy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3867
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. Government Advocate takes notice for the State.2. The petitioner is the owner of a Zen car bearing No. KA-12-N-4699. The said car was stolen by the accused. On a complaint the police have registered a case and laid a charge-sheet in C.C. No. 269/2000 on the file of the Prl. JMFC, Virajpet. The prosecution version supports the contention of the petitioner that he is the owner of the car and was the subject matter of theft. The case is pending trial. The interim custody of the car was given to the petitioner under Section 457, Cr.P.C. by the JMFC, on certain conditions. The chief condition being that the petitioner shall keep the car in his custody intact and shall not alienate until the disposal of the case. After taking interim custody, the petitioner made another application before the JMFC submitting that the petitioner has taken finance from the Co-operative Bank while purchasing the car, the interest liability is mounting up and he is unable to make arra...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Savakka and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)226; ILR2002KAR3870; 2002(4)KarLJ416
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of acquittal in S.C. No. 176 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum.2. The first appellant is the wife of deceased-Krishnegouda. The second appellant is the mother-in-law of deceased-Krishnegouda and the 3rd appellant is the brother-in-law of Krishnegouda. They are arrayed as A1, A2 and A5 before the Trial Court. A case was registered by Murgod Police in Crime No. 148 of 1995 against the appellants along with two others for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.3. The deceased-Krishnegouda is the native of Mabanur Village and is the son of Hanumanthagouda. He married A1, the daughter of A2 from Jeevapur. They stayed in the matrimonial home for some time. As she could not adjust with the family of her husband they moved to Jeevapur Village and she was living with her mother. Accused and the deceased had a child out of the wedlock. ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. M.C. Sudhamani Vs. Madaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4961; 2002(5)KarLJ35
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the applicant in Execution Case No. 36 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Channapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'Civil Judge'). In this appeal, he has called in question the correctness of the order dated 21st June, 1997 made in Execution Case No. 36 of 1995 by the Civil Judge.2. Few facts which may be relevant for disposal of this appeal may be stated as hereunder.3. The 2nd respondent-decree holder had obtained the decree against the 1st respondent-judgment debtor in Original Suit No. 112 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Channapatna for a declaration possession in respect of property bearing No. 90/A. It is the case of the appellant that while executing the said decree in Execution No. 36 of 1995, the 2nd respondent in collusion with Court Ameen, in excess of the terms of the decree, dispossessed the appellant from theproperty ...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Manjunathaiah and ors. Vs. D.V. Chidananda Murthy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4144; 2002(6)KarLJ408
1. Writ petitions are taken up with the consent of the parties. The petitioners arid the respondents in the writ petitions were all Junior Management Scale-I Officers in the first respondent-Bank. The next avenue of promotion was Scale-II Officers. An interview was conducted and in the interview different marks were prescribed for various performances and ultimately the respondents in the writ petitions were promoted by an order dated 21-10-1995 at Annexure-A.2. Petitioners in the writ petitions who were also in Scale-I category were aggrieved by the promotion of the respondents in the writ petition and challenged the promotion. The learned Single Judge by an order in the case of D.V. Chidananda Murthy and Ors. v. Kalpatharu Grameena Bank and Ors., ILR 1999 Kar. 2242, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the promotion made by the Bank and directed the Bank to redo the interview afresh. Aggrieved by this order, the Bank has also filed W.A. Nos. 1702 to 171.1 of 1999. The officers wh...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Jayaraj Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ570
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent 4, the matter is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 23-6-1998 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 31-7-2000 in R.A. No. 20/98-99 passed by the 1st respondent.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the land bearing Sy. No. 158 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas situated at Kamathi Village, Alur Taluk, Hassan District, since more than 20 years. He has filed an application in Form 50 before the 3rd respondent for regularisation of his unauthorised cultivation on the ground that he does not own any other land except 2 acres in Sy. No. 28 situated at Kerehally Village. After enquiry, the 3rd respondent by imposing TT regularised his unauthorised cultivation by an order dated 23-6-1994. In pursuan...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Xi Additional Chief Metropolitan Mag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ275
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 2. The office objections are waived. 3. This criminal revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P.C. to set aside the order of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, dated 31-5-2002 in respect of preliminaries of the Court-martial proceedings held at Secunderabad. A witness staying in Bangalore is required for examination. The summons were issued to the witness through Magistrate under the provisions of Section 135(3) of the Army Act. Therefore, the Assistant Judge, Advocate General, Headquarters, Southern Command, made a request to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for issuance of warrant of arrest to the witness. In respect of the said request, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order holding that the Court by itself cannot issue any warrant of arrest. The Military Authorities can issue warrant of arrest against the witness and for execut...
Tag this Judgment!Fakeerappa and anr. Vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ184
Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwad, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the parents of one Yallappa Angadi who died in the accident involving two motor vehicles.2. The application had been characterised as one under Section 163-A read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. The application had been examined by the Tribunal as one under Section 166 as is obvious on a perusal of the judgment and award. The trial court had in fact framed an issue relating to the negligence aspect on the part of the driver of the truck bearing No. KA 25-4107 and answered this issue positively. The Claims Tribunal then proceeded to quantify the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. On applying the principles governing an application of this nature, the Tribunal held that the driver of the truck bearing No. KA 25-4107 was liable to pay the compensation a...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Haq Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3403; 2002(5)KarLJ109
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader of the State (respondents 1 to 3).2. Though the legal representatives of respondent 4 are served, but have remained unrepresented. Since the matter is old and the case is coming up regularly both in warning list and the regular hearing list, without farther waiting for their appearance, with the assistance of learned High Court Government Pleader, the matter is taken up for final consideration as it involves pure question of law.3. The subject-matter of the writ petition is an agricultural land bearing S. No. 285 measuring 11 guntas situated at Haladipur Village in Honnavar Taluka. One Gouri d/o Masti Mukri, now represented by the L.Rs. respondents 4(a) to 4(g) was the tenant of the land in question.4. After coming into force the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended by Act 1 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.L.R. Act'), the said Gouri filed an application in F...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »