Karnataka Court September 2004 Judgments
State of Karnataka Vs. K.P. Thimmappa Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4785; ILR2004KAR4471
A.M. Farooq, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the order dated 18/ 11/1998 in Sessions Case No. 116/96 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga acquitting the respondent- accused who was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that PW-9 Smt. Rathnamma is the daughter of PW-11 Smt. Gowramma and PW-12 Ramachandrappa and they are residents of Pallavanahalli village in Honnali Taluk, Shimoga District, Karnataka. Accused is also a resident of the same village. PW-9 was a girl aged more than 16 years in 1996. The accused had his own land and he was also educated but unemployed and bachelor during that period. He used to engage PW-9 for coolie work in his land and he is alleged to have forcibly seduced her to permit to have sexual intercourse with her about 8 months prior to 4/1/1996 the day when a complaint was lodged against him alleging offence under Section 376 IPC.3. It is the prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Saleem Vs. State of Karnataka by Lokayukta Police and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ381; ILR2004KAR5143; 2005(1)KarLJ110
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Spl. C.C. No. 443/02 taking cognizance and issuing summons for the offences under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The petitioner was working as a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and during 1996-97. He was on deputation (O.O.D.) as a Manager Janatha Bazar, K.G. Road, Bangalore. One N.L. Gangadhar had complained to the Lokayukta police stating that the petitioner was demanding bribe to do an official favour. A trap was laid and the case was registered by the Lokayukta police in Crime No.3/1997 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the investigation, Lokayukta placed the matter before the Government for obtaining the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. It appears that the Government refused ...
Tag this Judgment!ijbulrahiman Ismailsab Bhaisarkar Vs. Mallikarjun Veerabhadrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR190
ORDERH. G. Ramesh, J.1. This Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against the order of the revisional Court dated 27.03.2004 allowing the application-IA No. 3 filed by the landlord in Rent Revision Petition No. 15/ 2001 under Section 29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 which corresponds to Section 45(4) of the new Rent Act i.e. the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (the 'new Rent Act' for short). By the impugned order, the revisional Court by invoking Section 45(4) of the new Rent Act has stopped all further proceedings and has directed the petitioner/tenant to put the respondent/landlord in possession of the petition premises.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 without jurisdiction as Section 45 of the new Rent Act does not apply to a revision petition preferred or prosecuted by the landlord. In support of his submission, he relied on a judgment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Timber Merchants' Association and Ors. Vs. Govt. of Karnataka and Anr. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant77; ILR2005KAR3105
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Petitioners are questioning the validity of the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Rules, 2004. As per the notification dated 19-5-2004 State of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 102 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 amends the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. After presentation of these W.Ps. on 25-8- 2004 amended Rules of 2004 has been further amended in regard to the amendment of Rule 145. These two Rules are called in question in these writ petitions.2. Amendment Rules, 2004 as notified on 19-5-2004 reads as hereunder :'Amendment to Rules 145 ;In Rule 145 of the Karnataka Forest Rule, 1969 after clause (c) the following Clause shall be inserted, namely :-(D) Application for issue of pass shall be accompanied by transportation fee on forest produce at the rate of Rs. 200/- per Cum. For timber, Rs. 25/- per Cum. For firewood/ plywood and Rs. 5/- per pole, Re. 1/- per bamboo-cane in Form No. 28 or 29.'As per the notification dated 25-8-2004 s...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswamy Vs. T.A. Prabhakar, Since Deceased by His Lrs. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant246; ILR2005KAR1125
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The first respondent-owner obtained a decree for eviction against the third respondent in respect of a non-residential premise in HRC No. 1487/95. The eviction order in Ex.Case No. 1924/1996 is executed on 17.7.1996 and possession taken. The appellant contends that the third Respondent has sub-let the premises to him and that he has been paying rents to the first Respondent. Thereby, the first Respondent has recognised the independent tenancy rights of the appellant. The appellant is not a party to the decree for eviction in HRC No. 1487/95, as such the eviction of appellant by the decree is bad in law. The appellant setting up the above plea filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, for restoration of possession in EP No. 1924/96 filed by the first Respondent.2. Before the Execution Court in EP No. 1924/96, the appellant and the first respondent have let in oral evidence. It appears at the stage of arguments, the appellant filed an affidavit to withdraw...
Tag this Judgment!V. Satyanarayana Vs. Sandeep Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ12; ILR2004KAR4505; 2004(7)KarLJ541
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. This revision Petition is referred under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act by a learned Single Judge (MSRJ) seeking clarification as to the judgment rendered in the case of G. PREMDAS v. VENKATARAM 2001(1) KCCR 437 incidentally rendered by one of us (SRBMJ) and the following question is framed to answer the reference:'Whether the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act forms part of the record? Or, Whether the same has to be marked as an exhibit as held in the said judgment and whether mere non-marking of the complaint is fatal?'2. The facts and reason for reference are that:The respondent - complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused before the Court on XII Additional C.M.M. at Bangalore City for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act alleging that in connection with loan of Rs. 1, 95, 000/- availed by him on 14.1.1997, the petitioner/accused had issued 13 cheques, each for a sum of Rs. 15, 0...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chickodi Sub Division and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4557; 2004(7)KarLJ524
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This Writ Petition raises a short but interesting question as to when can it be said that a 'No Confidence Motion' moved in terms of the provisions of Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayatraj Act, 1993 [for short, 'the Act'] expressing no-confidence in the post of a President of the Panchayat can be said to be carried by two-third of the total Membership of the Panchayat supporting it in a situation where there are certain vacancies in the Membership of the composition of the Panchayat; vacancies casual in nature and due to either resignation or death or like reasons.2. The question is as to whether the number to constitute two- third majority should be computed on the basis of the total number of Members that constitute the Panchayat at that time and are available or should the expression 'total number of members of the Panchayat', include even such number of Members in respect of whom casual vacancies have arisen and have ceased to be Members of the Panchay...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarojamma Vs. K.M. Venkatesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4931
ORDERRamesh, J.1. This revision petition by the defendant/tenant in the suit in S.C. No. 161/2003 is directed against the judgment and decree dtd.30.10.2003 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore directing the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord within three months.2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the record of the Trial Court.3. The relevant facts leading to filing of this Revision Petition are as follows;The respondent/plaintiff had leased the suit premises to the petitioner/defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/- for a period of two years and one month as per Ex.P1-the lease deed dated 10.3.1997. Accordingly, the lease got determined by efflux of time on 10.4.99. A notice of termination of lease dated 12.8.99 was also issued as per Ex.P2. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 9263/99 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for p...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalingappa Vs. Kenchamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4689; 2004(7)KarLJ549
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. This revision petition is referred by the learned Single Judge and as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to this Bench.2. The facts leading to the present petition and reference are as follows:-The respondent herein Smt. Kenchamma had filed a complaint before the learned JMFC, Hiriyur, in C.C. No. 712/1997 to take criminal action against Sri Mahalingappa and others for the offences punishable under Section 494, 109 r/w 34 IPC, on the ground that the 1st accused Mahalingappa is the legally married husband of the complainant, their marriage having been solemnized on 2.1.1997 as per the Hindu Customs and Rights prevailing in their caste; that after the marriage having led marital life for a period of 4 months, accused went to Aladamarahatti village and thereafter on 3.5.1997 the complainant was informed that her husband and accused No. 2 got married with one Indramma at Kanive Maramma Temple and it is the case of the complainant that thereafter the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shekar Vs. State of Karnataka, Through Kalasa Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4778; 2004(7)KarLJ522
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned H.C.G.P., accepts notice on behalf of respondent.2. Heard both the Advocates.3. The petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act by learned JMFC., Mudigere. The said judgment is confirmed by Fast Track Court-II, Chikkamagalore in Crl. A. No. 66/2002. Both the Judgments and orders are assailed in this revision petition.4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:At about 9 p.m. on 23-7-2000, the petitioner and another were found cutting sandal wood tree in Sy. No. 227 situated at Maranahalli belonging to Bharat Raj. The accused were illegally possessing 50 kgs of sandal wood billets with a view to transport the same to Kasaragodu. They were charged, tried and convicted for the offences under Sections 86 & 87 of Karnataka Forest Act as aforesaid. Three witnesses were examined and four documents and nine material objects are got marked on behalf of the prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »