Karnataka Court June 2004 Judgments
G.D. Mariswamy Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Dy. S.P. Lokayuktha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3584; ILR2004KAR3316
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The appellant Mariswamy assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No. 23/93, dated 21.7.1998 by the learned Special Judge, D.K. Mangalore, for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentencing him to undergo R.I for a period of 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I for a period of 3 months has come up with this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows.The accused was working as Accounts Assistant in the office of the Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation at Mangalore. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant P.W.1, Dinakar had applied for a loan with Canara Bank and that an amount of Rs. 46,000/ - was sanctioned less the amount of subsidy that was to be granted by the Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation, Mangalore. For claiming the subsidy P.W.1, Dinakar submitted an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Seema Alias Preeti Vs. Pramod Chandrakant Vernekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ572
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking for transfer of the proceedings in M.C. No. 59 of 2003 pending on the file of the Family Court, Belgaum, to the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karwar, averring that the petitioner is residing at Karwar and she is having a child aged 15 months and it is difficult for her to travel to Belgaum to attend the case filed by her husband seeking for divorce.2. The petition is resisted by the respondent by filing objections and contending that the petitioner has filed this petition only to harass him and no ground is made out for transfer of the case., The petitioner has deserted the respondent and has filed a false complaint.3. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.4. It is not disputed that a criminal case is pending against the respondent in the Court at Karwar. It is well-settled that while considering the application fo...
Tag this Judgment!Queens Saree Collection and ors. Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Kar)193; [2004]270ITR401(KAR); [2004]270ITR401(Karn)
N.K. Path, J. 1. The petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned notices dt. 31st March, 2003, vide Annex. C, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 on the file of the first respondent, have presented the instant writ petitions. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the first respondent to dismiss the miscellaneous petitions filed by the second respondent herein as not maintainable.The brief facts of the case are as hereunder :2. The petitioners 1 to 4 are registered firms; petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 and 10 are individuals and petitioner No. 9 is an HUF. During the assessment of the petitioners for the asst. yrs. 1993-94; 1995-96 and 1996-97, the petitioners have filed applications before the first respondent for settling their case. The Commission, by a common order dt. 29th Jan., 2001, has disposed of the applications filed by the petitioners for settlement. Be that as it may.3. The first respondent herein issued the impugned notices seeking to rectify...
Tag this Judgment!Muneer Ahmed Sheriff and ors. Vs. Javeeria Nusrath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ553
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 683/ 2003. The defendants are the appellants. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the A and B schedule properties by the plaintiffs. B schedule property forms portion of the A schedule property. The impugned judgment discloses that defendants No. 1 to 3 are placed expert and the suit is decreed expert.2. The order sheet discloses that defendants No. 1 to 3 have refused the summons. The Trial Court issued emergent process to defendants No. 1 to 3 by a Special Bailiff.3. The defendants strenuously contend that at no point of time they refused service of summons.4. The provisions of Rule 224 of the Karnataka Civil Service Practice 1967 reads thus:The Presiding Officer can direct a special process server for service to be made a outlying Court that means if the service of summons notice to be made on a person living...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Puthu Poojary and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3096; 2004(6)KarLJ302
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These Writ Petitions are presented by four persons amongst whom first petitioner who is the owner of the land over which certain power lines have been drawn and petitioners 2 to 4 who are supporting the case of the first petitioner challenging the order bearing No. MAG(2)CR 267:2001-02 dated 3.12.2002 passed by the 1st respondent, District Magistrate in exercise of the powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 allowing the application filed by the 2nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, permitting the power lines to be drawn over the 1st petitioner's land.2. Grievance of the 1st petitioner is that for the purpose of providing new power connection to the residence of the 3rd and 4th respondents the 2nd respondent has deliberately drawn the power line over the land of the 1st petitioner though it was not really necessary to do ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmavva Bhimappa Kambali Vs. Siddroad and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4296
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Though the matter is posted for admission, since the Trial Court has dismissed the complaint at the inception and respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are yet to come before the Court, notice to them is dispensed with.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nawaz, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 11.3. As the matter can be disposed of on the question of law, the same is taken for final disposal at the request on both sides.4. The petitioner is the Complainant who has filed the Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional police against the respondent for the offence under Sections 307, 326, 147, 148, 149 r/w 34 IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is the wife of the victim and in regard to the incident dated 5.4.2004 at about 9 pm when he was assaulted by the accused, first information was lodged with the jurisdictional police and though the police have registered a case only for the offences under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajashree Cement Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant427; ILR2004KAR4371; 2004(6)KarLJ126
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned demand notice dated 27th September, 2003 bearing No. RGN issued by the second respondent vide Annexure A, by holding that the same is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, whimsical, passed without jurisdiction, capricious and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Further, he has sought to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay motor vehicle tax in respect of the earth moving vehicles used solely in the mining or factory areas of the petitioner and that the second respondent is not entitled to demand and levy motor vehicle tax in respect of the aforesaid earth moving vehicles. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 9,13,200/- along with interest. 2. The petitioner is a unit of M/s. Grasim India, a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufactur...
Tag this Judgment!Sri M.V. Dixit and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3802; 2004(6)KarLJ69
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioners belong to the cadre of 'Superintendents' in the State Accounts Department ('SAD' for short) and are on deputation to Public Works/Irrigation Departments, working as 'Account Superintendents'. There are 253 posts of Accounts Superintendents in the Department of Public Works/Irrigation, It is stated that all officers in the cadre of Superintendents in the State Account Department, are working on deputation in various borrowing departments.2. The Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 and the Karnataka Public Works (Irrigation Services) (Recruitment) Rules, 1988 (for short 'PWE Recruitment Rules' and 'Irrigation Recruitment Rules' respectively) govern the recruitment to posts in Public Works Department an Irrigation Department. The method of recruitment prescribed under the said Rules, for the posts of Accounts Superintendents in the said Department, is only by deputation of officers in the cadre of Super...
Tag this Judgment!All India Vijaya Bank Officers Association (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Vijaya ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR408]; 2004(6)KarLJ256; (2005)ILLJ756Kant
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. All India Vijaya Bank Officers' Association and the Officer Employees of the Vijaya Bank have filed these petitions seeking to quash the departmental enquiry initiated against them and to permit them to be defended by Sri Ranjan Shetty, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Devarayasamudra Branch or any other officer mentioned in their representation or by an Advocate in the enquiry being held against them and to grant all consequential benefits.2. The facts are same or similar in all these petitions. At the time of arguments learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to me W.P. Nos. 40855 and 40856 of 2003 for the purpose of consideration of the case.3. According to petition averments the first petitioner-association is a recognised trade union of officer employees working in the Bank. At the industry level it is affiliated to All India Bank Officers' Confederation. The service conditions of the employees are negotiated and settled between the Bank management represented by ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Parushuram Nemani Kuduchakar and ors. Vs. Smt. Shantabai Ramachand ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3355; 2004(6)KarLJ275
N. Kumar, J.1. The Bench consisting of my esteemed learned brothers Justice Tirath Singh Thakur and Justice K. Sreedhar Rao, upon hearing the Regular First Appeal, RFA No. 446/1993, and having differed in their opinion on a point of law, have stated the point of law on which they differ, and in terms of Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal is placed before me for hearing on the points of law so stated only, by an order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. Though my learned Brothers in the course of their judgment have set out the facts of the case, in order to appreciate the case in a proper perspective and to give my opinion on the point of law stated, it is necessary to advert to the pleadings of the parties in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks to in the original suit.3. The plaintiffs contend that the propositus Sri Balaram Kuduchakar died in the year 1930 leaving behind four sons, out of whom two sons expired in their y...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »