Karnataka Court February 2004 Judgments
State by Gowribidanur Police Station Vs. Thimmappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ510
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29-8-1998 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C. No. 8 of 1992 mainly on the ground that though the prosecution has placed cogent and consistent evidence with regard to the manner in which the incident took place about 50 metres away from the land Survey No. 34/4 of Hampanasandra Village within the limits of Gowribidanur Police Station, on account of that incident late Yellappa was severely injured and on the very same day he died while undergoing treatment in the Nimhans hospital but the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted all the respondents-accused without appreciating the medical evidence which corroborated the ocular evidence, both injured witnesses and other eye-witnesses. Hence this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25-11-1990 at about 8 a.m. respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to 12 and deceased accused 5 and 13 with a common object to commit rioting, form...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Venkateshappa Vs. K.N. Sadashivaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant438; 2004(5)KarLJ556
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 204 of 1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolar, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 6 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malur. The appellant is the first defendant. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiff the suit property is mortgaged in favour of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 4000/- under registered mortgage deed. The plaintiff offered the amount and sought redemption, when the defendant refused, the suit came to be filed. The sum of Rs. 4000/- is also deposited before the Trial Court. Defendant contends that prior to the mortgage he was residing in the premises as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- and that by redemption his right to continue in the premises, as a tenant would not get extinguished in law. Therefore, resisted the ...
Tag this Judgment!Michael B. Fernandes Vs. C.K. Jaffer Sharief and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant289
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This Election Petition does not only challenge the integrity of the election of the first respondent but also the efficacy and integrity of the electronic voting machine used in the election of Yelahanka Parliamentary Constituency, The petitioner is the unsuccessful contestant at the 13th Loksabha Parliamentary Election held on 6-10-1999. The first respondent is the successful candidate. The respondents 2 to 5 are the other contesting candidates. Respondents 6 to 8 are Election Commission and its Officers. This Court deleted respondents 6 to 8 as not necessary parties. The Supreme Court confirmed the order.2. The gist of the objections raised by the petitioner in the Election Petition disclose that the amendment to Representation of the People Act by incorporating Section 61A and making provision for use of electronic voting machines and the consequent amendment to Rules is bad in law as it permits arbitrariness and ultra vires the Constitution. An election c...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramanappa Vs. Narasaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant414; ILR2004KAR3079; 2004(5)KarLJ549
ORDER 14 RULE 1 & 2 - FRAMING OF ISSUES BY THE COURT - HELD - If there is a specific denial of execution of a document by a party to the suit, it is necessary for the Court to frame a specific issue regarding proof of execution of the document. ALLOWING THE RSA, REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT, THE COURT,Held:In the instant case there is a specific denial of execution of the sale deed by the defendant. It is necessary for the Courts-below to have framed a specific issue regarding proof of execution of the sale deed casting burden on the plaintiff and such an issue would have given a fair opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence available with them. The examination of the attesting witness Under Section 68 of the Evidence Act is not necessary when the executant denies the execution. But when the fact of execution of a document is itself in dispute irrespective of the provisions of Section 68 the party alleging execution of a document has to prove th...
Tag this Judgment!B. Danmal Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST384(Karn)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short) dealing in ceramic tiles, brass Articles and fittings, sanitary fittings, PVC pipes and fittings, GI pipes and other allied goods. In these petitions, we are concerned with one range of items dealt with by the petitioner, described by the petitioner as Chromium Plated Brass fittings ('CP fittings', for short) such as bibcocks, pillar cocks, CP stopcocks, taps, showers, etc. In regard to assessment periods 1994-95 and 1996-97, assessing authority originally passed assessment orders dated April 7, 1997 and April 9, 1997 treating the chromium plated brass fittings as Articles made of brass falling under entry 8(iii) of Part B of the Second Schedule, subsequently, the assessing authority passed orders dated September 25, 1998 and September 28, 1998 under Section 12A of the Act in regard to the said two years reopening the assessments and bringing to tax the said CP fi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Padmasivaswamy Vs. U.P. Vatsala and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ411
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner-landlady who has failed in her effort to recover possession of the premises which she claimed for her occupation and the occupation of her daughter is calling in question the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 10th October, 2001 passed by the Court below in H.R.C. No. 418 of 1998 dismissing the eviction petition.2. The petitioner sought eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) on the ground of personal requirement and for accommodating her married daughter who is residing in the maternal house situate at Koramangala. In the petition it was stated that she being an aged woman, her health condition is deteriorating day by day and she need the constant presence of her daughter beside her. It was also stated in the petition that her daughter Arundathi is not inclined to come and stay in the petition premises unless the portion in occupation of the ten...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. S.N. Hegde Vs. the Lokayukta and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3892; 2004(3)KarLJ505
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. In these writ petitions important questions of law as regards the power of the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta to investigate complaints under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the procedure to be followed in such investigations, the effect of the report submitted by the Lokayukta and the consequences that flow from the declarations made under the Act arise for consideration, in addition to the question whether the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta has jurisdiction to investigate a complaint against a Vice-Chancellor of a University.2. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 25339 and 25340 of 2003 is one Professor S.N. Hegde, Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore. His case in brief is as under.--The petitioner was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor in September 1997 initially for a period of three years which was further extended for a period of three years in September 2000. His term was to expire in September 2003. He had put in more than 40 years of service in teac...
Tag this Judgment!Subhaschandra Vs. Indubai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC114; ILR2004KAR1327; 2004(2)KarLJ397
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. The petitioner, who was respondent in Cri. Misc. No. 12 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court at Gulbarga, has questioned the impugned order dated 19-11-2002 passed by the said Court by which he has been directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- to the 1st respondent and at the rate of Rs. 300/- to the 2nd respondent from the date of filing petition by them in Cri. Misc. No. 12 of 2002 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. till partition suit in O.S. No. 237 of 1998 is adjudicated and their legitimate share is given.2. Facts in brief, which gave rise to the present matter before this Court, are: The respondents herein, who were petitioners before the Family Court, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. from the present petitioner stating that they are the wife and son of deceased Revansiddappa, who was the son of the petitioner and unable to maintain themselves and the petitioner, in ...
Tag this Judgment!The Mysore Kirloskar Limited Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secre ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR167]; ILR2004KAR2158; 2004(5)KarLJ599
ORDER PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT -- APPLICATION OF MIND -- Government proceeded to pass the impugned order by looking into the factual report, which contains both claims and counter -- claims and other aspects of both the parties -- If the Government, on consideration of the materials placed before it has come to the conclusion that in order to preserve industrial peace, they are satisfied that an order prohibiting continuance of lock out is necessary, it cannot be said that the impugned order is passed without application of mind or without there being any material to substantiate the exercise of such power under the Act.(D) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -- ARTICLES 226 AND 227 -- Dismissal of Writ Petition -- Dismissal of Writ Petition does not enable the respondents to indulge either in strike or in any violent activities as the dispute between the parties is pending adjudication before the appropriate forum.Writ Petition dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!M. Munikenchappa Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ579
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is a person who had filed an application under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short), claiming to be a legal heir of an original grantee namely, one Mr. Doddamuniswamy, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and who had been granted an extent of four acres of land in Survey No. 107 (Present Sy. No. 163) of Pattandur Agrahara of K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.2. The land in question appears to have been sold by the said Doddamuniswamy on 23-10-1967 in favour of one Era Reddy, who in turn had sold it to others and ultimately is now traceable in the hands of respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner requested the Assistant Commissioner to invalidate the transactions as being in violation of the terms of the grant and for restoration of the land to the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner who had issued notice of the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »