Karnataka Court July 2004 Judgments
Raja Alias Dosaval Vs. State by Devaraja Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR339; 2005(1)KarLJ449
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This appeal is by accused 1, convicted for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC in S.C. No. 79 of 1995 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, dated 31-7-1998 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. Further sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in the nutshell is as follows.-The village girl, P.W. 3 selling flowers and eking her livelihood was abducted by the accused, which led her life to misery. When P.W. 3 went to Devaraja Market, Mysore, for purchase of flowers, accused 1, Raja alias Dosaval, accused 2-Venkataramanasetty alias Venkatasubba alias Kajji with the assistance of one Geetha took her near a hotel and made her to drink a cup of coffee by mixing with some intoxication and she become unconscious. When sh...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Department of Law and anr. V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4459; 2004(7)KarLJ356
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th March 2001 made in Writ Petition No. 13072 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent challenging the validity of notification dated 13th March 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E to this appeal passed by the 1st appellant-State discharging him from service during the period of his probation and quashing the said notification.2. The facts in brief are as follows:The respondent was appointed by the 1st appellant-State Government (hereinafter referred to as the State) as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) by means of notification dated 25th June 1991 issued by the State. Immediately after his appointment, he had reported to duty on 15th July 1991. He also underwent training for two months organised by the 2nd appellant-High Court. The appointing authority of the respondent is the State Government. The period of probation prescribed to a...
Tag this Judgment!BashiruddIn Halhipparga Vs. Rajashekhar Basavaraj Patil and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant471
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.ON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ELECTION PETITION.1. In the general election held in the month of Sept. 1999 to No. 5, Humnabad Assembly Constituency, the 3rd respondent Subhash Gurulingappa Kallur, was declared as an elected candidate. The first respondent-Rajashekar Basavaraj Patil filed an election dispute in E.P. No. 13/99 before this Court. The said petition came to be dismissed on merits. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the election petition, the 1st respondent filed a civil appeal before the Hon. Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5667/01 which appeal came to be allowed and the election of the 3rd respondent was set aside on the ground that he had incurred disqualification to contest the election under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Thereafter, a notification was issued on 22-1 -2003 by the Government of Karnataka, notifying the calendar of events for By-Election to No. 5, Humnabad Assembly Constituency. The dates of ev...
Tag this Judgment!Speedway Impex and anr. Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)KarLJ611
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner who is carrying on his business of running studio in a rented premises wherein he had displayed a name board prominently in front of his shop, has approached this Court praying for issue of mandamus or certiorari directing the respondents, their workmen, servants, agents henchmen and/or any person/s claiming through or under the respondents etc., from in any manner interfering with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises bearing No. 7/3, Bull Temple Road, Shankarapuram, Bangalore. Petition averments are that the Revenue Inspector, 2nd respondent, working in the 1st respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike had acted in a high handed manner and had helped petitioner's rival in getting the board removed.2. It is the plea of the petitioner that there was a dispute between the petitioner and another tenant in the same building in the first floor, on the question of the petitioner displaying his trade name and board and in view o...
Tag this Judgment!Neelesh Kumar Alias Neelesh JaIn Vs. Janardhana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC223; ILR2004KAR5112; 2004(6)KarLJ318
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. It is the case of the petitioner-accused that there was no service of demand notice on him and as such, the complaint is not maintainable and consequently, the proceedings initiated on the complaint require to be quashed. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent-complainant that though the legal notice sent through RPAD was returned with an endorsement as 'no such addressee', the demand notice sent under certificate of posting was duly served on the petitioner-accused and thereafter petitioner-accused had personally approached seeking sometime telling that he is in difficulties and hence, the complaint is maintainable.2. It is trite that giving notice in writing, demanding the cheque amount after cheque is returned dishonoured, is a must as per proviso (b) to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In this case; there is no dispute about giving such a notice. What is in dispute is, whether or not, there was service of such notice on the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Basavaraj Guddappa Malebennur and ors. Vs. Ningappa Guddappa Malebennu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant19; I(2005)DMC136; 2004(5)KarLJ96
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The appellants were defendants and respondents were plaintiffs in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court.2. This second appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 193/20 on the file of the Munsiff, Hirekerur, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-7-2003 in R.A. No. 193 of 1992 reversing the judgment and decree dated 23-6-1992 passed by the Trial Court in the suit.3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 6/13th share in the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs is that the propositor Guddappa had two wives-2nd plaintiff and 6th defendant; that plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 6 arc the children of 2nd plaintiff; that the 6th defendant is not the legally weeded wife of Guddappa; that after the death of Guddappa, the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit schedule properties; that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sanga Reddy Vs. Smt. Basamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3664; 2004(5)KarLJ297
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision petition by one of the defendants is directed against the order dated 23.01.2004 passed by the Trial Court in Final Decree Proceeding No. 5/2002. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has appointed the Assistant Director of Land Records as Court Commissioner under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) to effect partition in all the suit properties in terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No. 131/1990.2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is contrary to Section 54 of CPC as amended in Karnataka and hence requires to be set aside.3. The Trial Court by the impugned order has ordered for effecting partition in all the suit properties by metes and bounds through the Court Commissioner with a direction to handover 1/8th share to the plaintiff and thereafter to report to the Court along with his survey sket...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ashabi Vs. Smt. Faziyabi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant476; ILR2004KAR3599; 2004(6)KarLJ267
R. Gururajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 46/1990 on the file of the additional Civil Judge, Shimoga. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff-respondent filed a plaint and it was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of defendants 3, and 4 were the children of Chotima W/o. Buden Sab Chotima died on 30.12.1986. Abdul Samad S/o. Chotima predeceased his mother. He died on 7.4.1985 in an accident. He left behind defendants 3 and 4 and their children. Defendants 3 and 4 are the two wives of deceased Abdul Samad. They claim compensation and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded to the defendants 3 and 4. According to the plaint averments, defendants 3 and 4 have no right, title or interest in the properties left by the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff's husband has contributed a lot to Smt. Chotima and given cash amount also for purchasing the Municipal site in her name....
Tag this Judgment!Srikanth P. Hutagee Vs. Gangahdar S. Hutagekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC82; 2004CriLJ3815; ILR2004KAR3658
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused has challenged the proceedings in C.C.No. 321/02 and process issued against him by the JMFC II Court at Hubli, on the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Respondent appeared through counsel. So, heard both sides and perused the records.2. It is the case of the Respondent/Complainant that a Cheque dated 16.7.1999 was issued for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in connection with the liability to be discharged by the petitioner/accused but, when said cheque was tendered, it was returned with an endorsement as 'Stop payment'. The intimation from the bank was received on 17.1.2000. So, a legal notice dated 2.2.2000 was issued to the petitioner/accused by the Respondent/Complainant demanding the amount of cheque. Said notice was served on the petitioner/accused on 4.2.2000. Since no payment was made thereafter, complaint was f...
Tag this Judgment!Chatrappa and anr. Vs. Niyaj Ahmed Khan and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC330; 2004(6)KarLJ190
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This miscellaneous first appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 1-8-2002 passed in M.V.C. No. 134 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division and MACT, Koppal awarding total compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest at 6%.2. The deceased Prameela, a female child died in an accident occurred on 28-3-2000 due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle owned by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and driven by the first respondent. There is no dispute between the parties that the minor child died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus by its driver. Therefore, there is no need for us to review the finding recorded by the MACT on the issue relating to actionable negligence. The appeal is preferred seeking enhancement of compensation. Before the MACT, the claimants who are the parents of the deceased claimed total compensation of Rs. 3,40,000/-. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »