Karnataka Court April 2004 Judgments

Nagaraj Vs. Gowramma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)22; IV(2004)BC44; 2004CriLJ2947; 2004(4)KarLJ262

ORDERK. Ramanna, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 25-6-1999 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 16399 of 1997 and order dated 26-9-2001 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Cri. R.P. No. 239 of 1999, whereby the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, convicted this petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount he shall suffer S.I. for two months. Whereas, 1st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge allowed Cri. R.P. No. 239 of 1999 filed by the respondent for inadequate sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, assailing both the orders the petitioner has come up with this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge ...

Ms. Grace Shanthappa Vs. Vijay Shroff and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2004Kant363; II(2005)BC96; 2004(5)KarLJ376

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 8052/1980 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the XIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore city, dated 29-2-1992 in so far as it pertains to dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff in part,2. The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows:--The plaintiff filed the suit, O. S. No. 863/80, later numbered as O. S. No. 8052/1980 seeking for the following reliefs :'(a) to pass a decree against the defendants directing them to execute in favour of and deliver to the plaintiff a deed of Transfer of Trust in respect of the bequeathed property, namely No. 40, East End Road, Bangalore.(b) to pass a decree directing the defendants to deliver and place the plaintiff in possession of the bequeathed property, namely No. 40, East End Road, Bangalore, by obtaining due attornment of all the tenants thereof to her;(c) to pass a decree dire...

Ugar Sugar Works Limited (Distillery Unit) Vs. State of Karnataka and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004(5)KarLJ525

Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. These writ appeals arise out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants have been dismissed and the demand raised against them upheld. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:2. The appellants are carrying on business in the manufacture of Rectified Spirit in the distilleries established by them for that purpose. The spirit manufactured by the appellants is almost entirely used for the manufacture and bottling of arrack which is in turn regulated by the Karnataka Excise (Manufacture and Bottling of Arrack) Rules, 1987. Apart from the said Rules, the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1967 also makes several provisions regulating allotment of Rectified Spirit, its transportation, storage etc., Rule 31 of the said later set of Rules empowers the respondents to allot Rectified Spirit to the arrack manufacturers who take the delivery of the allotted quant...

S.V. Hiremath and ors. Vs. Veerabhadragouda and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004CriLJ3607

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order dated 16-2-2002 passed by the Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P. No. 74/2000. The brief facts leading to this case is that the respondent is a registered contractor and the petitioners-1 and 2 are executive engineers in MRBC Sub-Division-5, Ron and Sub-Division-22, Ron, respectively. The other petitioners were working as assistant executive engineers in the aforesaid sub-divisions and they have been entrusted with the road repair work, to that effect an agreement was entered into between the respondent-1 and the assistant executive engineer MRBC Sub-Division-22. After completion of the work measurements were entered in the MRBC register. Accordingly, as per the agreement respondent-1 was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,53,346.71. When he requested the petitioners herein for making such payments they did not consider his request and payment of said sum was not made. Therefore he made several written requ...

D. Parthasarathy Vs. Vinayaprabha

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2004Kant348; I(2005)DMC372

Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner- husband, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition under Section 13(1-A)(11) and under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the 'Act') by the Judgment and Decree dt. 9-10-2003 passed in M. C. No. 206/2001 on the file of the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore (for short the 'Family Court'), has preferred this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act.2. The relevant facts necessary for decision making, may be stated thus : The appellant is the husband of the respondent whose marriage was solemnized on 8-3-1992 at Bangalore in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. There are no issues from out of the said wedlock. While the appellant sought for a decree of divorce by filing a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act in M. C. No. 318/93, the wife filed M. C. No. 586/96 under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court clubbed the cases, held a common trial and by a common...

B. Srinivas and ors. Vs. Director, Research and Development Organisati ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004(7)KarLJ232

ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The question, whether the respondent could have made appointments only in terms of the rules that prevailed at the time of calling applications for the post or whether it could shelve the whole process of selection under the old rules and opt for the new rules prescribing different qualification for the post is the only question that arises for our consideration in this batch of writ petitions.2. The respondent had instructed the Employment Exchange to sponsor names for appointment as storekeepers. The Employment Exchange had sponsored several names. A common test was conducted for all the eligible candidates and the successful candidates were also called for personal interview. When matters were pending at that stage, new rules of recruitment came into vogue prescribing qualification different from the one prescribed by the earlier rules. The respondent invited applications from eligible candidates possessing qualification prescribed under the new Rules...

Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2004KAR2221; (2008)11VST100(Karn)

ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Petitioner is a manufacturer of Cement, as also a grouting material known by the Brand name 'Shrinkkomp'. It is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short). In regard to the assessment periods 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990 and 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991, the Assessing Authority passed orders of assessment dated 25.2.1994 and 29.4.1994 respectively.2. The petitioner had several grievances in regard to the orders of assessment, two of which are relevant in these revision petitions: (i) taxing of 'Shrinkkomp' as 'Cement' at 13% as falling under Entry 7 of Part 'C' of Second Schedule to the Act; and (ii) subjecting the turnover relating to charges for packing material specified and charged by the assessee separately (without including it in the price of goods) to turnover tax under. Section 6B of the Act. The petitioner therefore filed appeal Nos. KST AP.NOS. 74/94-95 & 91/94-95 before the First Appellate Authority in regard to its grievances...

Chamu Jinnappa Sheri and ors. Vs. Savitri Yeshwantrao Chagule and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant30; ILR2004KAR4738; 2004(7)KarLJ238

ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The respondents have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC. It is submitted that the appeal was disposed of earlier by this Court and Sri G.S. Vishveswara was appearing for the respondents then. The order of this Court was set aside in appeal by the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal remanding the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After the remand Sri V.P. Kulkarni filed vakalath for the respondents. By mistake Office did not show the name of Sri V.P. Kulkarni, therefore it is submitted that the Counsel appearing for the respondents has not been heard and prayed for an opportunity to submit his arguments on merits. The request is granted and heard.2. Sri V.P. Kulkarni referred to the contents of the registered partition deed marked at Ex.P.5 dated 4.10.1963. The following are the material paragraph of the deed relevant for consideration.'The details of the properties jointly given to the share of No. l - Jinnappa Nemanna Sheri and No...

Urban Development Authority Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petitions filed by the respondents challenging the acquisition of land under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 were allowed and the acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant quashed.2. A large extent of land measuring about 69 acres 181/2 guntas situated in different survey numbers of Kasba Hobli, Bhadravathi, were notified for acquisition under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 in terms of a notification dated 10th of December, 1991. A final declaration under Section 19 of the said Act followed on 15th of October, 1992, in respect of the entire extent mentioned in the preliminary notification. Before however, an award could be made, the landowners challenged the acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition Nos. 24566 and 26458 of 1993 in this Court. These petitions were disposed off on 24th of August, 1994 and 9th of Mar...

The Deputy Chief Engineer and ors. Vs. R.S. Ramanath

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2004(102)FLR908]; ILR2004KAR2540; 2004(5)KarLJ275; 2005(3)SLJ318(NULL)

ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. The respondent, an official of the railways, filed application before the Tribunal seeking for the relief of quashing the enquiry instituted against him and the charge sheet dated 22.9.1994. The Tribunal by its order dated 13.7.2000 allowed the application and quashed the disciplinary proceedings deeming it as abandoned. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order have preferred this petition questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order.2. We have heard Sri N.S. Prasad, ACGSC for the petitioners and M/s. Vagdevi Associates for the respondent.3. The Tribunal was of the view that there has been inordinate delay in giving a finality to the departmental enquiry and as this delay is entirely on account of the lax approach by the department, the respondent is entitled to the relief claimed by him.4. Mr. Prasad, learned Addl. CGSC, cited for our consideration Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules and submitted that the delay is not p...