Karnataka Court July 2004 Judgments

Ameer Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004CriLJ4794; ILR2004KAR4122; 2004(7)KarLJ371

ORDERMajage, J. 1. The only short point that arises for consideration in this matter is, 'whether the period of 90 days provided under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. applies when investigation relates to an offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.?'.2. In the case on hand, at first instance, F.I.R. came to be issued for an offence punishable under Section 366A against the petitioner -accused. However, later on, Sections 342 and 376 of I.P.C. also came to be added on the request made. The petitioner was arrested on 14.12.2003. However, charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days from that date. So, an application under Section 437 read with Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner-accused before the learned Magistrate to release him on bail on the ground that charge-sheet has not been filed within a period of 60 days provided under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. But, the learned Magistrate rejected that application holding that since one of the offences allege...

Sri Krishnabai and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2004KAR4158; 2004(6)KarLJ138

ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. In these set of petitions the petitioners have sought to direct the 1st respondent to grant statutory benefits including interest of 12%, 9% and 15% on the solatium on awarded amount under Sections 23, 23 (1-A) & Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'); for further direction to the respondents to grant all other benefits for which they are entitled under the Act and to refer the matter to the Civil Court for higher compensation under Section 18 of the Act.2. According to the petitioners their properties were acquired by the Government for the construction of the Almatti dam by issuing preliminary notification under Section 4(1) dated 2.12.83 and final notification under Section 6 on 31.6.96; the land Acquisition Officer having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and out of urgency entered into an agreement and finalized the acquisition and agreed to pay compensation amount to the petitioners and others whose landed prope...

Soore Detergents, by Proprietor Vs. D. Mohanraj and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2004KAR4325

ORDER 39, RULE 1 & 2 - Inter locutory application for injunction in passing off action, under - HELD - in an action for passing of , it is usual and essential to seek an order of injunction -The plaintiff must prove a prima facie case, availability of balance of convenience in his favour and irreparable injury caused to him - Having regard to the over all similarities both Etymologically and phonologically it is clear that the essential feature and characteristic of the plaintiff's trade mark 'Sundari' has been made use of by the defendant in the wrapper produced by him used for marketing the detergent cake - Hence plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for passing off the detergent cake by the first defendant under the trade name of the plaintiff and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated if plaintiff succeeds in the suit; So the plaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction.Held...

Smt. Shantala G. Rao Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2004KAR4801; 2004(6)KarLJ325

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 7-6-1996 of the 2nd respondent-Caste Verification Committee, recording a finding that the petitioner does not belong to 'Maleru' community, declared as 'Scheduled Tribe' and the order dated 27-10-1998 of the 1st respondent, dismissing the appeal. In addition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 9-4-1999 of the 3rd respondent, employer, terminating her from the services of the Bank.2. Briefly stated facts are as under:The petitioner claiming to be a member of 'Maleru' community, declared a 'Scheduled Tribe' in the State of Karnataka, secured employment on 15-6-1977 in the 3rd respondent-Bank, to the post of a Clerk, as against the vacancy reserved for 'Scheduled Tribe', on the basis of a certificate dated 9-9-1976, issued by the Additional Chief Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga District. The petitioner claims that the Tahsildar of Koppa, Chickmagalore Distr...

Syed Pasha Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004CriLJ4123; 2004(7)KarLJ735

N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The appellant-accused has filed this appeal, assailing the judgment of conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, in SC No. 91 of 1991, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bidar, dated 9-9-1998, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The nutshell of the prosecution case is as follows :The prosecutrix, daughter of PW6 Nirmala and PW7 Subhash, was a child aged about five years. The child and PWs 6 and 7 were residing in the house of Panchappa along with PW8 Manemma and PW1 Venkatesh. Their house is situated at Gandhinagar Colony, Bidar. PW6 Nirmala as well as PW8 Manemma are sisters. Whereas PW1 Venkatesh is the son of PW8 Manemma.The accused Syed Pasha and his father Syed Ameerali are running their flour mill, situated at Gandhinagar Colony, Bidar. The said flour mill is situated a few yards aw...

C.P. Srinivas Rao Vs. S.S. Nagaraj

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2005)BC173; 2004CriLJ4389; ILR2005KAR1166

ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. It is the case of the petitioner-accused No. 5 that he was not a Director of the A1 - Company on the date of issue of cheque and transaction as he had tendered his resignation long back on 28-2-1997 and, that in the complaint, there are no allegations against him except that he is a Director of the accused No. 1 (Company) and the cheque has been issued with his knowledge and consent and hence all the accused are liable to be proceeded, and as such, he cannot be prosecuted and consequently, the proceedings require to be quashed. After notice to the respondent complainant, heard both sides and perused the records.2. It was vehemently argued for the petitioner that unless there is specific allegation in the complaint that he was a Director, who was in charge of and responsible to the Company (A1) for the conduct of the business of the Company, he cannot be prosecuted, more so, when he was not even a Director of the accused No. 1- Company during the relevant period o...

Nadeem Ahmed Vs. State

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004CriLJ4798; I(2005)DMC593

ORDERS.B. Majage, J. 1. A short but an important point which arises for consideration, is, 'whether an accused is entitled to bail, if investigation is not completed and charge-sheet is not filed within 60 days from the date of his arrest when he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 306 or 304-B of IPC?'2. Facts which gave rise to the said point, are :The petitioner-accused No. 1 was produced before the learned Magistrate on 5-4-2004 in Crime No. 38/2004 of Shivajinagar Police Station at Bangalore, alleging that he and another accused (accused No. 2) committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and consequently, he was remanded to judicial custody. That custody was extended from time to time. However, charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days from the date of his remand. So, on 25-6-2004, the petitioner/ accused No. 1 filed an application under Section 167 of Cr. P.C. requesting for his release on bail on that ground. Thereafter, on hear...

Vidya Ramakrishnaiah Vs. R.N. Vikram

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR838; 2005(3)KarLJ347

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. This appeal is by the wife. In this appeal she has called in question the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 26th September 2003 made in M.C.No.1173 of 2000 by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the family Court) granting a decree dissolving the marriage that had been solemnized between her and the respondent.2. Facts in brief, as set out in the petition may be stated as hereunder:The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 20 th June 1999 according to the traditional Hindu rites at Dayananda Sagar Kalyan Mantap, Bangalore. According to the petition averment, the marriage was an arranged marriage; the appellant lived and studied in United States of America where her parents lived; and after obtaining her diploma she got admitted to the Devraj Urs Medical College, Tamaka, Kolar District; she used to accompany her parents to India and spend the summer vacation in India; she is the on...

N. Shivanna and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 23-9-2002 in case No. ELN(2) CR 56/2001-02 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District, Chamarajanagar, declaring them as having been disqualified from being members of the 2nd respondent-Town Municipal Council, under the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (for short, the 'Act'), have filed these writ petitions.2. The 2nd respondent-Town Municipal Council has 23 Wards for which elections were held on 3-5-2001. 11 candidates belonging to Janata Dal (U) and 11 candidates from the Congress (I) along with one independent, were declared elected. The petitioners and the 3rd respondent belong to Janata Dal (U) Political party.3. The Tahsildar, Gundlupet, on 24-12-2001 issued a notice for the meeting of the Members of the 2nd respondent-Council to be held on 4-1-2002, for election to the office of President and Vice-President, which was acknowledged by the petitioner...

Yashwanth Bhandary Vs. State of Karnataka by Padubidri Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2004KAR3785

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the convicted sole accused in S.C. No. 11 of 1998, challenging the Judgment & order of conviction and sentence dated 08.11.1998 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada Mangalore finding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: -The deceased Taj Begum was the daughter of Adam Saheb and Zuleka of Moojur village; she was frequently visiting the house of her aunt Fathimabi (P.W.3) situated at Bengre-Padubidri; P.W.2 Balkis is the elder sister of deceased Taj Begum who is also residing with her husband at Bengre Padubidri; the accused is also the resident of Bengre; D.W. 1 Leela is the mother of the accused and D.W.2 Vinaya D. Bhandary is brother of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that since three months pri...