Karnataka Court September 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. B.S. Annapurna and ors. Vs. Kumaraswamy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ191
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate. To my mind, the complications that have arisen in this case are totally avoidable had the petitioners' learned Advocate taken the elementary precaution of applying to the learned Trial Judge for permission to pay the Court fee if after the application to sue as an indigent person came to be rejected. The provisions of Order 33, Rule 15 make it clear that even in instances where the Court dismisses the application for permission to sue as an indigent person, that it is equally necessary for the Court to prescribe a reasonable period of time within which the party is entitled to pay the requisite Court fee and continue with the litigation. One of the possible contentions that could be raised against such a situation is that the application for permission to sue as an indigent person has to be in the form of an affidavit and the averment on oath which the plaintiff is required to make is to the effect that the party ...
M. Sanjeeva and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Secretary, the De ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4867
Jain, C.J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed against the common order dated 24.7.2003 passed in W.P.N. 6058/2003 wherein the learned Single Judge has not interfered with Notification dated 26.12.2002 (Annexure-A), issued by the 1st respondent. As in both the appeals, common questions of law and fact are involved, they are taken up together.2. It is stated that the 2nd respondent is a society governed by Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Central Act 39 of 2002) (for short 'the 2002 Act'). Earlier the Act of 1984 was in force and it was replaced by the 2002 Act. The management of the 2nd respondent -Society is vested with the Board of Directors. The appellant - petitioner was elected as a member of the Board of Directors vide notification dated 22.01.2003 for a period of 3 years. Being aggrieved by the issuance of notification dated 26.12.2002, issued by the State Government, the appellant - petitioner filed the above Writ Petition challenging the nomination of the 3rd and the 4...
K.M. Manjunatha and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4590
ORDERPatil, J. 1. Though these writ petitions are listed in orders list, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents, the matter is taken up for hearing. The said writ petitions are heard on 09.09.2003 and 10.09.2003.2. In these cases, the petitioners, assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 02.02.2002 vide Annexure 'G' issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 30B of the Karnataka Co-op. Societies Act, 1959 and Annexure 'N' issued by Respondent No. 3 dated 10.01.2003 and also the order passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 09.04.2002 vide Annexure 'K^; and further sought a direction directing Respondents No. 1 & 2 to follow the order vide Annexure 'C' and 'D' dated 22.06.2001 and 07.08.2001 respectively.3. The grievance of these petitioners is that, earlier they had filed Writ Petitions before this Court in writ petitions No. 48389 -48455/01 and connected matter. Those writ petitions have come up on 26.02.2002. After hearing both sides, t...
Bhavani Agencies Vs. G.C. Colour Lab and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC187; 2004(1)KarLJ421
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner regarding maintainability of the petition and perused the records.2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31-8-2001 passed by XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in P.C.R. No. 1911 of 2001 filed by the complainant for bouncing of cheque. Whereby the Trial Court dismissed the complaint by holding that the complaint is hit by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, therefore, feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has come up with this petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C.3. The case of the revision petitioner is that:This revision petitioner filed a private complaint in P.C.R. No. 1911 of 2001 against M/s. G.C. Colour Lab and another. Respondent 1 is a partnership firm represented by its partner Sri N.S. Chandrakanth, 2nd respondent. Respondent 1 issued a cheque for Rs. 6,580/-, dated 24-2-2001, Cheque No. 475626 to discharge the...
Beacon Industries Vs. Anupam Ghosh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)6; 2003(6)KarLJ205
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by M/s. Beacon Industries against the order dated 18-11-2001 passed by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The case of the revision petitioner is that the partnership firm, represented by its partner, filed a complaint against the respondent for bouncing of a cheque. After receipt of the complaint filed by the revision petitioner, the Trial Court, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the complaint by holding that there is a bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act and that an unregistered firm cannot prosecute any person or a firm.3. Heard the arguments of both parties and perused the records. In this, behalf the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that filing of a complaint by the partner of an unregistered firm is not a bar but it cannot fil...
Beacon Industries, Rep. by Its Partner Vs. Anupam Ghosh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC484; ILR2003KAR4325; [2004]52SCL345(Kar)
ORDERRamanna, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by M/s. Beacon Industries against the order dated 18.11.2001 passed by the XII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, in a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The case of the revision petitioner is that the it is a partnership firm, represented by its partner, filed a complaint against the respondent for bouncing of a cheque. After receipt of the complaint filed by the revision petitioner the Trial Court, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the complaint by holding that there is a bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act and that an unregistered firm cannot prosecute any person or a firm.3. Heard the arguments of both parties and perused the records. In this behalf the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that filing of a complaint by the partner of an unregistered firm is not a bar but it cannot file a civil suit. Therefore, the d...
State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Annayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ429
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-2-2001 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangalore, in Cri. A. No. 141 of 1997 whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 1-9-1997 passed by the Authorised Officer and Additional Superintendent of Excise, Mangalore, in No. SDK/ DBCR/485/94. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the State has come up with this revision.2. The accused by name Mahesh Gowda and Ramesh were found transporting 300 sachets of arrack in an autorickshaw without valid licence and permit. The same were seized by the Excise Authorities. After registering a case the said goods along with autorickshaw were produced before the Authorised Officer and Additional Superintendent of Excise, Mangalore, for confiscation. Accordingly, the Authorised Officer after holding an enquiry confiscated the autorickshaw bearing No. MEG 7363 belonging to the respondent by an order dated 1-9-1997. Accordingly,...
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hamza and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ325; ILR2004KAR651
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. In this appeal the Insurance Company is challenging the liability saddled on it. The claimant - first respondent - Hamza sustained certain injuries in a road traffic accident on 4.8.1997. While driving an autorickshaw bearing No. CTX 9512, under the employment of second respondent. He presented a claim petition before the Commissioner claiming compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The appellant-Insurance company, on the ground that the details of the policy were furnished in the claim petition expressed its difficulty to admit its liability. It was also contended that the claimant did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident. However, during the course of evidence; the policy was produced by the claimant and marked as Ex.P4. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy had come in to force from 5.8.1997 and was valid up to 4.8.1998. The second respondent/employer by paying premium on ...
New India Assurance Co. Vs. Annappa Laxman Karamoshi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ66; ILR2004KAR1077
K.L. Manjunath, J1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and Award dated 1st January 2003, passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Gokak, in MVC No. 786/97.2. The respondents 3 & 4 in this appeal were the claimants before the Tribunal. They presented a claim petition on account of the death of their son Basavaraj who died in a road traffic accident. According to the claim petition, the deceased Basavaraj, was an employee of the 1st respondent-Annappa Laxman Karamoshi. The 1st respondent is the owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA-23/T-1601 and KA-23/T-1602 and the same has been insured with the appellant returning in the tractor and trailer, in question to their home. As it was a new moon day, while returning from the work, on their way to home they had been temple to perform Pooja. While returning from the temple, the Tractor and Trailer met with an accident. Basavaraj, an employee died in the accident and other collies of the 1st respondent got injur...
Chakrapani Vypar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC124(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner is before me seeking to quash the detention order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Group IV, Enforcement-Central, Chennai, vide annexure-E. Petitioner seeks for a further direction directing the respondent No. 1 to reimburse all the losses caused to him.2. Petitioner-company is having a registered office at Bangalore. He is registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioner imported polypropylene from Exxon Mobile Asia Pacific, Singapore, five containers, weighing 99 M/Ts under bill of lading under open general licence. The said goods were shipped from Singapore to Chennai port on June 2, 2003. The goods reached Chennai port on June 16, 2003 and to ICD, Bangalore (Customs Station), on June 21, 2003 and June 24, 2003. Respondent No. 1 passed an order of detention in terms of annexure-E. Petitioner filed objections in terms of annexure-F. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed an appeal before the Tam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »