Karnataka Court June 2003 Judgments
Smt. Chinnamma and ors. Vs. R. Venkataswamy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ105
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This petition under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC, is filed for review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court in R.F.A. No. 11 of 1998, dated 17-4-1998 and for reconsideration of the appeal, R.F.A. No. 11 of 1998.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this petition are as follows:--Parties would be referred to with reference to their rank before the Trial Court.3. Petitioners herein filed O.S. No. 9 of 1990 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), KGF, for partition and separate possession, declaration, mesne profits and other reliefs against defendants. After trial, the Trial Court dismissed the suit by answering issues against plaintiffs by its judgment and decree, dated 19-12-1997. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dismissing the suit, plaintiffs filed R.F.A. No. 11 of 1998 on the file of this Court and this Court by its order dated 17-4-1998 dismissed the appeal.4. It is the case of plaintiffs that one Kaki Muniyappa h...
Tag this Judgment!Malaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited Vs. C.R. Shigehalli and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2779
ORDERPatil, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 29.11.2000 passed in Revision Petition No. 29/2000 by the KAT, Bangalore, vide Annexure-B. 2. The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were the employees of the petitioner at the relevant period Respondent No. 1 was the Cane Accountant, respondent No. 2 was the Accountant of the State Accounts working on deputation and respondent No.3 was performing the duties of collecting cash, cheque/drafts etc. given in favour of the factory. Be that as it may Respondents 1 to 3, at the relevant period, had delivered sugar in violation of the conditions after accepting cheques and thereafter delayed in presenting the same to the Bank for encashment. Thus, the factory has suffered loss. That under such circumstances, the Director of Sugar/Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on 29.5.1981, ordered for enquiry under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shobha Vs. State Election Commission, by Its Commissioner and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3104; 2004(2)KarLJ375
ORDERDattu, J.1. A member of Mysore Zilla Panchayat calls in question the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by the Commissioner, State Election Commission dated 30.11.2002, on a complaint filed by some of the members of Zilla Panchayat in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act 1987, (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'Prohibition Act')2. Petitioner, 2nd and 4th respondent herein are members of Mysore Zilla Panchayat. They belong to Congress Party. The third respondent herein is the President of Mysore Rural District Congress Committee, Mysore District, Mysore. The Zilla Panchayat has 41 members and out of them 20 belong to JD(S), 18 from Congress, 2 is from BJP and one is an independent member.3. In the present case, we are concerned with the elections held on 11.3.2002 for the office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyksha of Mysore Zilla Panchayat. It is the case of respondent Nos 2 to 4 that whip ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Salim Khan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ335; ILR2003KAR3337
Saldanha, J.1. These appeals preferred by the State of Karnataka assail the common judgment dated 26.3.1998 whereby the Trial Court had acquitted all the accused in the 4 sessions cases that were heard together. Though the incidents was common, since some of the accused were absconding at different times those cases were separated and later on, they formed part of a common trial. The learned Trial Judge has acquitted the accused principally on the ground that there are infirmities in the evidence which are virtually fatal to the prosecution and it is against this order of acquittal that the present set of appeals have been filed.2. We have heard the learned Counsel in support of the appeals at considerable length and we have also reviewed the record threadbare. We have also heard the learned Counsel who represents the respondent - accused who has again referred to various particulars of the record and both the learned Counsel have made their submissions both on facts and in law. In oth...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesh B. Prabhu Vs. Syndicate Bank, Rep. by Its General Manager (P) M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2667; 2003(6)KarLJ30; (2004)IILLJ83Kant
ORDERDattu, J.1. An employee officer of the respondent Syndicate Bank is before this Court, interalia requesting this Court to quash the orders made by the respondent Bank dated 17.12.1999, 30.12.1999 and 1.1.2000 respectively. 2. Facts in nutshell are Petitioner had joined the services of the respondent Bank on 16.7.1970 as a Clerk. While in service, he was initially promoted as an Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I w.e.f. 25.5.1974. He was further promoted as an officer in Middle Management Grade Scale II w.e.f. 1.1.1982 and then to the middle Management Grade Scale III w.e.f. 1.10.1990. He was further promoted as a Senior Management Grade Scale IV Officer w.e.f. 16.5.1998. 3. On promotion to Grade Scale IV Officer, he was transferred to Hampanakatta, Mangalore Branch of the respondent Bank as its Chief Manager. He reported for duty at Hampanakatta, Mangalore Branch on 3.6.1988. While he was working as Chief Manager at the aforesaid branch, he was transferred to Ludhiana Bran...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Shivanne Gowd and ors. Vs. the Hindustan Paper Corporation Limite ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2869; (2003)IIILLJ1098Kant
Nayak, J.1. Both the appeals are directed against the same Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29th September 1999 in Writ Petition No. 7118 of 1993. Hence, both the writ appeals were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition, be noted at the first instance and they are as follows: The appellant in Writ Appeal 8228 of 1999, Sri B.C.Shivanne Gowd joined the services of the Mandya National Paper Mills Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for the sake of brevity) in the year 1979 as Labour Welfare Officer. He was promoted to the post of Personnel Officer during 1985. Subsequently, he was further promoted as Assistant Manager (Personnel & Administration) in the year 1988 and as Deputy Manager (Personnel & Administration) in the month of November, 1989.3. Sri Shivanne Gowd while serving as Deputy Manager (Personnel & Administration), on 31-12-1992 sub...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Yamanappa Irappa Bommanahalli and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1031
1. The State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal, which is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in S.C. No. 57/1994. The four accused, who are respondents before us, were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. the allegation being that, at about 12.30 in the night of 22-9-1993, they are alleged to have assaulted deceased Upashappa Kallappa Mamadapur with an axe and wooden clubs, and that they inflicted severe injuries on him as a result of which he died after some time. The trial Court, after a careful analysis of the evidence, held that the material on record did not establish the charges and consequently acquitted the accused and it is against this decision that the present appeal has been filed.2. The learned Government Pleader, who appears in support of the appeal, was critical of the approach adopted by the trial Court, because he pointed out that this is a case in which the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Dinesh Shastry
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ332
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP on merits, as also, so far as IA-I is concerned. His principal submission is that the weapon used was a deadly weapon, secondly, that the injury was on the head, namely, vital part of the body and thirdly, that the nature of the injury was such, that it could have caused death. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the fact that there is enough evidence on record to indicate that the accused was armed with the deadly weapon. The statements made by him and all other accompanying circumstances would clearly indicate that his intention was to finish off the victim and that consequently, even though the death has not taken place, Section 307, I.P.C. will clearly apply.2. We have very carefully re-examined the facts and the law. We are of the assumption that the allegations against the accused, as held by the learned trial Judge, make out a case for conviction and we have only reviewed the question whether Section 326, I.P.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Rai and ors. Vs. Mahalinga Rai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2764; 2003(5)KarLJ253
Sabhahit, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 7.11.1998 passed by the III Addl. District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in RA No. 2/1993, wherein the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge at Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, in OS No. 141/1987 dated 28th November 1992 has been set aside and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court with a direction to make a reference to the Land Tribunal, Puttur, under Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act with regard to the question as to whether Chalgeni tenancy rights over the suit properties were held by the Kutumba, to which the parties to the suit belonged or by the deceased 1st defendant alone.2. The essential facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:The parties would be referred to with reference to their rank before the Trial Court.3. Plaintiffs, being the wife and children of late Kunhanna Rai @ Ammu Banta filed a suit O.S. No. 141/1987 seeking for partition and separate possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Employees State Insurance Corporation, Rep. by Its Deputy Director Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2784; 2003(5)KarLJ127; (2003)IIILLJ1039Kant
Majage, J.1. The appellant Corporation has challenged the order dated 14/ 03/2001 passed in E S I No 13/2000 by the Employees Insurance Court at Hubli, by which, order dated 14/02/1999 at Ex R-16 passed by the Corporation has been set aside, holding that the respondent herein is not liable to pay the contribution claimed in the said order.2. Heard arguments. It is submitted for the Corporation that the E I Court has committed an error in relying on the decision in the case of M/S. BRAITHWAITE AND COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED v. THE EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, : (1968)ILLJ550SC since according to it, the said decision does not hold the field now and, in view of the definition of the word 'wages' as it stands now and as per the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on the point, even the 'exgratia' payment made comes within the definition of the word 'wages' as defined under Section 2(22) of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On the other ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »