Karnataka Court November 2003 Judgments
Subbarayappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1235
Mohan Shanthana Goudar, J. 1. The appellant is convicted accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in S.C. No. 218/95 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolar.The facts leading to this case are that deceased Rangamma and the accused were living as wife and husband in a hut situated in the land of Akkulamma at Madapalli. Since one month prior to the incident the accused used to quarrel with the deceased by telling that he does not want to cohabit with her any more. At about 8.30p.m. on 3.3.1993, the accused picked quarrel with the deceased and told her that she should leave the house. The deceased questioned the accused as to why she should leave the house and that she will reside with him only. At that point of time, the husband took out a tin containing kerosene and poured the kerosene on the body of the deceased and set her on fire. Thereafter, the accused went out of the house by closing the door and bolting it from outside. As the deceased started to cry in a...
Tag this Judgment!Neelakant and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2172; 2004(1)KarLJ583
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Two practising Advocates at Dandeli have presented these writ petitions questioning the appointment of the 2nd respondent-another Advocate as notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 by the 1 st respondent as per order dated 23rd June, 2000 (copy at Annexure-M).2. Petitioners have contended that they were also aspirants for the said appointment and had filed their applications seeking appointment as a notary. The District Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, who is the Competent Authority to consider applications of interested persons to be appointed as notary had found that the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent who were the aspirants and who had applied for being appointed as a notary pursuant to notification in this regard had not fulfilled the requirements of Rule 3 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short, 'the Rules'), inasmuch as they had not produced any proof to substantiate that they had practised at the Bar for more than 10 years and rejected their ...
Tag this Judgment!J.A. Ahamed Haji Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ309
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. All these revision petitions are directed against the common judgment dated 27-2-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madikeri, in Cri. A. Nos. 84 to 90 and 92 to 98 of 2000 whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the judgment dated 23-11-2000 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Madikeri, in C.C. Nos. 40 to 44, 48 and 49 of 1997. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders the revision petitioner-accused 1 has come up with the above revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P.C. mainly on the ground that as per Ex. D. 4, the RTO, Madikeri, has transferred the vehicle in question in the name of the second respondent, therefore the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are illegal and incorrect and liable to be set aside.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the ...
Tag this Judgment!North West Karnataka Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Krishnappa Hanamantappa Bh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1048
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The appellant North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation who has called in question the judgment and award dated 6.2.2003 made in M.V.C. No. 17 of 1997, on the file of the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Dn.) and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Gadag (hereinafter for short 'the M.A.C.T.').2. The facts of the case in brief are, one Krishnappa Hanamantappa Bhandi, an agriculturist boarded a passenger Tempo bearing the registration No. KA 25-6763 at Gadag on 14.12.1996 to go to Dundur. At about 9.30 a.m., when Tempo reached Ichal Halla Bridge on Gadag-Hubli Road, the bus bearing registration No. KA 26-F 103, owned and belonging to the appellant came in the opposite direction at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Tempo. In the accident, the claimant-injured sustained grievous injuries to both his legs, right eye and other parts of the body. The injured was shifted to K.M.C. Hospital, Hubli and on advise, to Bambolgi Hos...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathamma Vs. Kamalamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant395
K.L Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents seeking partition and separate possession of 1/2 share in all the plaint schedule properties. One Paruvegowda of Shashivala village of Arasikere taluk had two sons by name, Basavegowda and Mallegowda. Mallegowda had a wife by name Marulamma and that the plaintiff is the only daughter of Mallegowda and Marulamma. Respondents-defendants are the legal representatives of the other son of Paruvegowda, namely, Basavegowda, According to the plaint averments, Mallegowda died 50 years prior to the institution of the suit. The suit is instituted in the year 1993. Therefore, it has to be presumed Mallegowda died in the year 1943 and that three years later to his death his widow Marulamma also died having behind her the plaintiff as her sole legal heir. After the death of Mallegowda and Marulamma, his brother Basavegowda continued to be in possession of all the joint family properties and was ma...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthappa Vs. Shankarappa Hemagiriyappa Rokhade and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ297
K. Sreedhar Rao, J. History of the litigation:1. These appeals are filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.S.A. No. 2 of 2000 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranebennur arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 17 of 1983 on the file of First Additional Munsiff Ranebennur. The appellant in R.S.A. No. 425 of 2003 is the second defendant in the suit. The appellant in R.S.A. No. 569 of 2003 is the first defendant in the suit. The first respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit for a declaration that the resolution No. 200, dated 23-10-1978 and resolution No. 111, dated 29-2-1980 are null and void, not binding on the plaintiffs and to declare that resolution No. 172, dated 8-9-1973 is valid and to seek delivery of possession of plot No. 38(a) from the first defendant-municipality which is said to be in occupation of defendant 2 at the time of the suit.2. The municipal council offered non-residential plots to the public for construction of the te...
Tag this Judgment!V.B. Raikar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ333; ILR2003KAR4805; 2004(1)KarLJ323
ORDERRajendra Prasad, J. 1. This petition by the accused - petitioner filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the proceedings in Special case (Corruption) No. 3/1996 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, wherein the petitioner had been facing prosecution for offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri A.H. Bhagavan, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Sri C. Ramakrishna, learned HCGP on behalf of the State of Karnataka.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for petitioner that there is absolutely no prima facie case made out against the petitioner for the said offences. In the departmental enquiry held, it has been concluded that there is no material placed for proceeding against the petitioner. This conclusion has been arrived at after a thorough enquiry. Under these circumstances, it would be in the ends of justice if the petition is al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›