Karnataka Court June 2003 Judgments
State of Karnataka, by Karnataka Lokayuktha Vs. T.R. Krishnamurthy, Ps ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3977; ILR2003KAR2980
ORDERBhakthavatsala, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the State under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed against order dated 24.2.1996 passed in Spl.Case no. 17/ 95 on the file of Special Judge, Bangalore, discharging the Respondent/Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground of invalid sanction for prosecution of the respondent/Accused. 2. The Respondent/Accused is represented by the learnedAdvocate, Sri A. V. Srinivas. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the Respondent is referred to as ' the Accused' as arraigned in the Trial Court. 4. The brief facts of the case leading to the Revision Petition may be stated as under: The Respondent / Accused being a Public Servant, while officiating as a Sub-Inspector of Police, Bidadi Police Station on 3.8.1993, demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,500/- from the Complainant/Sri S.V. Ravi for showing...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmaiah Vs. Smt. Sarojamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ184
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. Civil revision petition is taken up for hearing with consent of parties. This is a defendant's revision petition. The defendant being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court in refusing to mark the family settlement deed which is before us.2. By order dated 3-10-2001, the Trial Court held that the document that was sought to be marked by defendant could not be marked on the ground that the document was not registered.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for respondent 1-plaintiff is that the document is not registered and the petitioner claims right under the document, which is inadmissible in evidence. Further, the learned Counsel submits that the Trial Court was justified in declining to mark the document.4. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Umakant Rao v. Lalitabai and Ors., wherein, this Court held that whenever a document is produced during trial, admissibility has to be decided before admitti...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Electricity Board Engineers Association, Rep. by Its Gen. Se ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3424
ORDERDattu, J. 1. Question of law involved in all these Writ Petitions is identical.Therefore, all these Writ Petitions are clubbed together, heard anddisposed off by this common order. 2. Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions belong to the State WideCadre of Graduate Engineers in the erstwhile Karnataka ElectricityBoard (.Board. for short ) Some time in the year 1998-99, there was a proposal toinitiate certain reforms in the functioning of the Board. In view ofthat, the State Government has promulgated an Act known as.Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. (`Act. for short). It hasreceived the assent of the President on 28.8.1999 and it has comeinto force w.e.f 1.6.1999. 3. The preamble of the Act gives out the purpose of the ReformsAct, 1999. The preamble reads as under: 'An Act to provide for the constitution of an ElectricityRegulatory Commission (The Commission) for the State ofKarnataka, to provide for the restructuring of the electricity industryin the State, the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Narayana and ors. Vs. the Kolar GramIn Bank, Rep. by Its Chairman ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3615
Nayak, J. 1. In these Writ Appeals what falls for decision is the validity of the method and procedure adopted by the Management of Kolar Gramin Bank in selecting and promoting respondents 2 to 12 herein to the post of Field Supervisors. When the validity of their appointment to the post of Field Supervisors was called in question in Writ Petition No. 13400 of 1991 by the appellants herein and certain others, a learned Single Judge of this Court without finding any merit in any one of the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners dismissed the Writ Petition by Judgment and Order dated 17th of April, 1998. Hence, these writ appeals by the aggrieved writ petitioners, six in number.2. The facts of the case be stated briefly are as under.The appellants at the relevant point of time were working as Junior Clerks in the establishment of the Bank. The next promotional post for Junior Clerks is the post of Senior Clerk 50% of posts in the cadre of Field Supervisors are required to b...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmappa and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ5
1. These writ appeals are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing on both sides.2. The appellants are landowners. They filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge seeking to quash Section 4(1). Preliminary notification and the final notification under Section 6(1) under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners are the appellants before this Court. 3. The facts are briefly set out herein.-A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 17-12-1992 and published in the Chavadi on 23-1-1993. The final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 22-1-1994 and an award was passed on 25-5-1994. Possession of the land was taken by the State Government on 16-7-1994. The writ petitions were filed before the learned S...
Tag this Judgment!North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Gangawwa and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ179
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. Though the matter is listed for orders, by consent of both the parties, the appeal is heard finally.2. This appeal is by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. The respondents 1 and 2 were the claimants before the Tribunal who are the widow and son of the deceased Chandrashekarappa who died in a road traffic accident on 3-2-1996 near the gate at Ilkal Bus Depot. The deceased was a conductor, drawing a salary of Rs. 2,643/-and he was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal applying the multiplier of 15, has assessed the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,17,160/-. In addition to that, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 4,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to the estate and Rs. 8,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all a sum of Rs. 3,34,160/-has been awarded as compensation. This judgment and award is called in question in this appeal.3. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two questions....
Tag this Judgment!Asea Brown Boveri Limited Vs. Boving Fouress Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC405; [2004]120CompCas780(Kar); ILR2003KAR2814; 2003(6)KarLJ1; [2003]47SCL554(Kar)
Jain, C.J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judges dated 16.1.2003 passed in Company Petition No 111/2001 wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the competent Civil Court or to invoke the arbitration clause for recovery of the amount due 2. It is stated that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is a manufacturer and dealer of electrical products, motors, switchgears, control panels, etc. The appellant company under various invoices raised from time to time, supplied the materials to the respondent company. The materials delivered by the appellant company were acknowledged by the respondent company and the total balance outstanding due on various invoices was Rs. 25, 09, 849-84. The respondent company though initially raised some dispute, issued a cheque of Rs 5,00,000.00 dated 31/12/2000 drawn on State Bank of India, Industrial F...
Tag this Judgment!G.B. Chebbi and ors. Vs. Syed Ulfath HussaIn and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3367
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. Writ Petitions Nos. 40210 and 40279 of 1999 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, the Tribunal) dated 9.9.1999 in O.A. No. 188/1998 in so far as the Tribunal has set aside the appointment of the petitioners to the cadre of Indian Police Service.Writ Petition No. 40849/99 has been filed by the unsuccessful candidate challenging the order of the Tribunal for not quashing the proceedings of the Selection Committee.Writ Petition No. 43782/99 has been filed by the Central Government challenging the order of the Tribunal in so far as the Tribunal quashed the appointment of the successful candidates.2. The learned Tribunal in our view, passed an order which was self contradictory. That is perhaps, why all the parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal have challenged the order of the Tribunal.3. Since all the Writ Petitions before us arise out of a common order, a common order is r...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Bhat Vs. Smt. Radha Hengsu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3866
ORDERBannurmath, J 1. Though the matter is posted for admission, as both the sides are represented and agreed for disposal, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed challenging the order dated 05/02/2003passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr Dn,), Mangalore in O.S. No. 756/2001. 3. The respondent herein has filed a suit for possession against the petitioner and his wife. During the course of the evidence, the respondent entered into witness box to give evidence on her behalf, and who is also cross- examined on 13/01/2003. Thereafter, she made certain admissions. It appears the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a memo to the effect that while giving the evidence P.W.1 has not been able to answer the questions properly due to her old age, ill-health and light dumbness and as such prayed that the evidence already given by her may be expunged and she may be permitted to lead fresh evidence. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has allo...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gangalaxmamma Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ114
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. This is an intra-Court appeal filed by Smt. Gangalaxmamma, challenging the legality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. No. 46238 of 1999, dated 4-2-2002.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their respective ranks before the learned Single Judge.3. The petitioner is the widow of one late R. Krishnappa, who was working in the Police Department and later, retired as a Sub-Inspector. She has filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the respondents dated 14-12-1999 and 18-12-1999 respectively, and for certain other reliefs.4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that she was residing along with her husband and children at house No. 1715, 31st Cross, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, for the past over 20 years. According to her, she has taken the house on rent from one Annaiah Naidu, in whose name the khata stands in the Corporation. It is her case that the whereabouts of Annaiah Naidu is not known s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »