Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ4359; ILR2004KAR152; 2003(5)KarLJ277
ORDER1. All these seven criminal revision petitions are filed by the respective revision petitioners under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. against the orders dated 12-6-2001, 7-7-2001, 26-5-2001, 26-5-2001, 7-7-2001, 7-7-2001 and 5-7-2001 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranebennur in Private Complaint Nos. 25, 30 of 1995, 31 of 1995, 28 of 1995, 27 of 1995, 29 of 1995 and 32 of 1995, respectively, whereby the Court below returned the complaints, on the ground that the respective complainants have not obtained the prior sanction as per the provisions of Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act to take cognizance of the case.2. Since the respondent in all these cases are common and common question of fact and law are involved, all of them are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts that are to be noted are as follows.-On 1-4-1995 at about 11.20 p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2004Kant388; III(2004)BC204; ILR2003KAR3881
ORDERSreedhar Rao, J. 1. With utter dismay I find that the pleadings filed by the parties at the time of filing of the suit and in the subsequent stages like appeal and revisions, there is no faithful and scrupulous observance of the provision of Order 6 Rule 14-A. 2. For convenient reference, the provisions are extractedhereunder: 14-A Address for service of notice - (1) Every pleading, when filed by a party, shall be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form, signed as provided in Rule 14, regarding the address of the party. (2) Such address may, from time to time be changed by lodging in Court form duly filled up and stating the new address of the party and accompanied by a verified petition. (3) The address furnished in the statement made under sub-rule 91 shall be called the 'registered address' of the party, and shall, until duly changed as aforesaid, be deemed to be the address of the party for the purpose of service of all processes in the suit or in any appeal from a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4883; [2003]134STC570(Kar)
ORDERRaveendran, J. 1. Petitioners are all assesses under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, the Act). They are in the business of developing photographic films brought by the customers, making positive prints thereof and supplying positive prints to the customers. Some of them also undertake the works of taking photographs, enlarging prints, etc.2. Section 5B was inserted in the Act by Act 27 of 1995 with effect from 1.4.1986. It enables the State to levy tax on transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form), involved in the execution of work contract. The said Section is extracted below:5-B Levy of tax on transfer of property in goods (whether a goods or In some other form) involved in the execution of works contracts - Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (3-C) of Section 5, but subject to Sub-section (4), (5) or (6) of the said section, every dealer shall pay for each year, a tax under this Act on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004CriLJ493; ILR2003KAR3631
ORDERBannurmath, J.1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Courts atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. The polluters of judicial firmament are therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain sublimity of Courts environment; so also to enable to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.2. Any one who takes recourse to fraud, deflects course of judicial proceedings, or if anything is done with oblique motive the same amounts to interference with the administration of justice. As such the persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar activity, which tends shakes the faith of the people in the system of administration of justice. Thus are the observations the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in cases BENEATH KUMAR SINGH IN RE, : 2001CriLJ2575 , CHANDRA SHASHI v. ANIL KUMAR VERMA, : 1994ECR636(SC) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ503
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In view of deletion of 7th respondent, learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to reassign the ranking of the respondents.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is one of the members of the Land Tribunal and he being an Advocate was appearing for respondents 4 to 10 and his participation in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal cause prejudice to the petitioners. Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for 3rd respondent pointed out that in the statement of objections filed, the 3rd respondent has stated that he will not participate in the proceedings in respect of respondents 4 and 5. In view of this, the allegations made against the 3rd respondent are withdrawn by the petitioners by filing a memo. The memo is accepted. Counsel for the petitioners is seeking the same in respect of respondents 6 to 9 also. The same will be dealt with in due course of this order.3. The petitioners have sought for quashing the impugned order at Annexure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2004)ACC275; 2005ACJ1981; 2003(5)KarLJ427
Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal by the Corporation assails the correctness of an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti whereby a sum of Rs. 3,13,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been determined and awarded as compensation for the death; of Sri Ramachandrappa Lamani in a road accident.2. The case of the claimants as set out in the claim petition was that the deceased Sri Ramachandrappa Lamani was travelling on the roof of a bus plying between Ramdurg and Batakurki. Somewhere on the way, he was hit by a branch of roadside tree resulting in severe injuries to him that proved fatal. M.V.C. No. 840 of 1992 was in due course filed by his father, widow and the children for payment of compensation. Their case was that the accident in question had taken place due entirely to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle/bus by its driver. Their further case was that the deceased was made to sit on the roof of the bus by its driver and condu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR1583
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant herein purchased property bearing No. 63, Charles Cambell Road, Cox Town, Bangalore (measuring 52' 6'x 80')' under registered Sale Deed 24.5.1985 executed by G B Subramanyam Setty. She was registered as the Khatedar of the said property in the records of the Corporation of City of Bangalore, vide Katha Transfer Endorsement dated 3.8.1997.2. A sale deed was executed in favour of the first respondent 23.2.1988 by the City Civil Court, Bangalore (in execution of a decree for specific performance passed in O.S.No. 494/1964 against B. Lakshiminarayana Setty) conveying the said property to him. On the basis of the said sale deed, the first respondent applied to the Bangalore City Corporation on 3.1.1989 for registering the Katha in his name. As the katha was not transferred, for nearly six months, the first respondent filed WP No. 21427/1989 seeking a direction to the Corporation to transfer the katha of the said property in his name. A learned Single Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1317
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner was a licensee under respondents 1 and 2 to run a refreshment stall in the premises belonging to the respondent Corporation at Kerur bus stand in Belgaum Division. The licence period was for 3 years in the first instance which had been extended for a further period of two years ie. up to 30.9.1997. Petitioner did not vacate the premises even after the expiry of the extended period of the licence and as such became un-authorized occupant. Efforts on the part of the respondent Corporation to grant licence in favour of another person by inviting tenders from intending bidders were thwarts by the petitioner by approaching the Civil Court and seeking for a restrain order against the respondents. Ultimately all such efforts on the part of the petitioner having failed he was forced to vacate the premises with effect from 13.2.1999. The subject matter of this Writ Petition is the justification or otherwise of the quantum of damages that was determined...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(3)KarLJ451
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. All these three revision petitions pertain to the same property bearing No. 24/37, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, which is the petition schedule premises. Since the parties are also common, these three revision petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner-P.V. Ramadas in H.R.R.P. No. 184 of 2000 is the tenant and deceased K. Seshadri Iyengar, represented by his legal heirs, who are petitioners in H.R.R.P. Nos. 118 and 230 of 2000 is the landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'landlord and tenant'.3. The landlord filed petition under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (now repealed, hereinafter called as the 'Act') seeking eviction of the tenant under Clause (a) on the ground that he is in arrears of rent; under Clause (d) on the ground that the tenant is causing nuisance; and under Clause (h) on the ground that the landlord require the petition schedule premis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant502; 2004(1)ARBLR430(Kar); ILR2003KAR3463; 2004(1)KarLJ611
ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. This revision is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 16.3.2002 passed on I.A. No. 2 in O.S. No. 118/98 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Udupi dismissing I.A. No. 2 filed by the petitioner herein under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requesting the Court to refer the dispute between the parties to arbitration and stay the suit proceedings.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for delivery of possession of the plaint property on the ground of expiry of the lease period. The plaintiff-respondent contended in the suit that immediately on the expiry of the lease period, the plaintiff got issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to hand over possession of the property. The petitioner-defendant sent reply notice on 20.3.1998 refusing to hand over possession of the premises. The respondent-plaintiff decided to invoke the provisions of arbitration clause contained in the lease deed and as per the amended...
Tag this Judgment!