Karnataka Court June 2002 Judgments
State by Gonibeedu Police Vs. Singari and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)KarLJ52
1. These two criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1994, dated 1-1-1997 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge. Chickmagalur. The allegation against the two accused were that, on the night of 25-4-1994 at about 8.30 p.m. they are alleged to have been involved in an incident wherein a firearm was used and gunshot injuries resulted to deceased Kitta. The injured person was first taken to the Mudigere hospital, given some treatment there and then transferred to the hospital at Mangalore where he died after three days. According to the prosecution on the 27-4-1994, P.W. 13 who is the Sub-Inspector of Police was deputed to Mangalore to record the statement of the injured person in the hospital and he recorded the dying declaration which is Ex. P. 15 in which the deceased stated that the two accused were involved in the incident of shooting him and that was how he had sustained the gunshot injuries. The accused who are coolies we...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Prabhavathi Vs. K. Somashankar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant431; II(2002)DMC407; ILR2002KAR3505
Shylendra Kumar, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 2. This appeal by the wife is against the Order and Decree dated 28-7-1995 passed in MC No. 100/90 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore, granting decree in favour of the respondent/husband on the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly under Section 13(1)(i-b) i.e., the husband has proved that the wife has deserted his company for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.3. The appellant wife being aggrieved by the Decree of Divorce granted against her on the ground of desertion is in appeal before us.4. The petition by the husband was presented on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The ground of cruelty did not find favour with the trial Court and was rejected, However the trial Court found merit in the stand of the petitioner/husband that the wife has deserted him and as...
Tag this Judgment!Shantha Exports Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. the Director, Departmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR2551; ILR2002KAR3960; 2002(4)KarLJ506
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the orders passed on I.A. No. 1 in O.S No. 36 of 2001, on the file of the Vacation Judge (Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dated 26-5-2001. rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction.2. The plaintiff, M/s. Shantha Exports Private Limited is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act carrying on the business activities in granites throughout the State of Karnataka. Likewise, the plaintiff applied for issue of licence to conduct the quarrying operation of multi colour granite blocks deposited in Survey No. 67 of Kebbehalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk. The authorities of Department of Mines and Geology inspected the suit schedule property. The same was considered by the committee constituted under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules for which Forest Secretary was also a party and thereafter a notification was issued by the Department o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. V.P. Hassan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3441
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The State challenges the judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No. 35 of 1994 by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.2. The said case involved offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.3. The prosecution alleged that while trying to maintain law and order at the scene of occurrence,, which was in front of the Rayonpuram Post Office at Perumbavoor at about 10.45 a.m. on 8-12-1993, the accused, who does not belong to any Scheduled Caste, intentionally insulted P.W. 1, who was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor shouting (Vernacular text omitted...Ed.) and that in consequence of the said statement the complainant Asstt. Sub-Inspector was humiliated.4. The accused pleaded not guilty. Even though many witnesses were cited, only P.Ws. 1 and 9 spoke in terms of the prosecution case. The trial Court found that in the absence of better evidence, especially from the M.L.A., who was all...
Tag this Judgment!Jijo and anr. Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ256; ILR2002KAR3994
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the proceedings in CC No. 8546/99. The petitioners are the accused against whom the State had laid the charge sheet for committing offences punishable under Sections 407 and 420, IPC. The first petitioner is the owner of the lorry in question, accused 2 is the driver of the lorry. According to prosecution version, the lorry in question was hired by Amrut Distilleries Limited for transportation of liquors to be delivered to Kerala State Beverage (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited at Kerala, Amrut Distilleries had entered into a contract of transport of its goods with the Reliable Transport Service. The Reliable Transport Service had in turn had hired the lorry in question from Balamurugan Roadways for transportation of the goods in question. It is said that after the goods were loaded, the petitioners misappropriated the goods and did not deliver the same at the destination point. Th...
Tag this Judgment!V. Prabhakar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3533; 2002(4)KarLJ470
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners are all owners of different bits of lands having purchased the same under the registered sale deeds of even dated 5-12-1996. The petitioners made applications to the Corporation to transfer katha to their names on the strength of the sale deeds referred to above. As the Corporation had not taken any steps to consider their applications they had filed writ petition before this Court seeking certain direction. This Court directed the Corporation to consider the applications for transfer of katha.2. At the instance of the Corporation the Special Deputy Commissioner issued a notification dated 18-6-1998 proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the benefit of the Corporation to construct hospital, school and playground showing the name of the vendors of the petitioners as the owners of the land in question. The fact that the petitioners have purchased the property under registered sale deeds was well-within the knowledge of the Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekarayya Gurusiddayya Charumurti Hiremath Vs. the Special Lan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3592; 2002(4)KarLJ441
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J. 1. This is the claimants miscellaneous second appeal being aggrieved by the dismissal of LAC Appeal No. 342 of 1989, dated 8-9-1998 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Belgaum confirming the order in LAC Appeal No. 469 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Chikkodi, dated 25-2-1987 rejecting the reference.2. The brief facts are as follows:The land of the claimant bearing Survey No. 57 of Majati village in Hukkeri Taluk measuring 9 acres 12 guntas was acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for Hidkal Dam Project under a preliminary notification dated 29-12-1962 followed by a final notification dated 26-3-1964. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre for the Bhagayath land and Rs. 1,200/- per acre for the dry land and in all awarded compensation amounting of Rs. 16,020.65 including the statutory benefits. The claimant after receiving the compensation amount filed an ...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Noor Mohammed Vs. the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Mulk ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ127
K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The petitions are filed for quashing of the notice of demand issued by the Chief Officer, Town Municipality, Mulki and to set aside the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karkala in Cri. Misc. P. No. 206 of 1992 and the order passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge in Cri. R.P. Nos. 193 to 195 of 2000 respectively. All these three cases pertain to the same petitioner but to different properties situate within the area of the Town Municipality, Mulki which is now said to be designated as Mulki Town Panchayat under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, as could be seen in the description of the cause title of the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mangalore. 2. According to the petitioner, he undertook construction of the buildings in Mulki which have been assigned with property Nos. 29-A to 29-C for one building and for another building 29-D and for the third building 29-E. The buildings are said to be non-residential ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Bhatia (Huf) and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR422(KAR); [2002]257ITR422(Karn); [2002]123TAXMAN1088(Kar)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions are asses-sees under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In these petitions they have called in question the correctness of the communication dated March 24, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as annexure D along with the writ petitions wherein the claim of the petitioners that they are liable to pay tax at 30 per cent, and not at 40 per cent, as determined under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), came to be rejected. They also prayed for a direction to the respondent to modify the tax demanded in the certificate issued under Section 90(1) of the Scheme and to restrict the tax liability of the petitioners only at 30 per cent, and to refund the tax collected by the respondent in excess of 30 per cent.2. A few facts which are not in serious dispute may be stated as hereunder : The residential premises where all the petitioners were...
Tag this Judgment!Carbeauti and anr. Vs. the Karnataka Bank Limited and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant434; [2002]112CompCas75(Kar); ILR2002KAR4594; 2002(5)KarLJ50
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. An interesting question arises in this writ petition for a decision of this Court. Petitioners herein are the defendants in the application filed by the Karnataka Bank Limited in O.A. No. 681 of 1995 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The application is for recovery of certain amounts from the defendants.2. During the pendency of the application, defendants have filed an application under Section 19(6) read with Section 19(8) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 19 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. In the said application, they have requested the Tribunal to permit them to raise a counter-claim in a sum of Rs. 65 lakhs together with current and future interest. That application is opposed by the applicant.3. When the application was filed by the defendants before the Registry of the Tribunal, the same came to be returned with a direction to pay the Court fee on the counter-claim. Bas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »