Karnataka Court September 2004 Judgments
Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR223; 2005(2)KarLJ226
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, successful bidder in the tender-cum-auction, held by the Director of Mines and Geology was granted a lease of 29 acres in Sy.No. 248 of Melmala Village, Chamarajanagar Taluk, to extract black granite. On acceptance of the tender, respondents 1 and 2, having received Rs,60. 10 lakhs, executed a lease deed for a period of five years w.e.f. 20.8.1996 to 20.8.2001 under Rule 31-A of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (for short the Rules).2. The petitioner in the course of extraction of the mineral noticed that the black granite rock deposit was available only in an area comprising of 5 acres out of 29 acres. The petitioner having brought to the notice of the respondents 1 and 2, the aforesaid fact, evoked no response, was compelled to approach this Court in W.P. Nos. 17179/96, 27462 and 29463 of 1996. This Court by order dt. 25.6.1998 found fault with the State and its authorities of having practiced 'suppress vari and Suggesto f...
Tag this Judgment!K. Srinivasa Vs. Kashinath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)13; IV(2005)BC497; 2004CriLJ4566; ILR2005KAR2890; 2004(7)KarLJ535
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J. 1. The petitioner herein, who is the accused in C.C. No. 26750/2003 (P.C.R No. 323/2003) pending on the file of XTV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore has come forward with the present revision seeking for setting aside the order of issuing process and for quashing of the proceedings in the said criminal case.2. The records disclose that the respondent herein lodged the complaint before the Court below alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) against petitioner. By the order dated 15-3-2003, the Court below ordered to issue of process against the petitioner for the said offence.3. The main point canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner is that the Court below has gravely erred in issuing process against the petitioner without recording the sworn statement of the complainant; and that the Court below has , on the basis of the averments made in t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sunitha Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(174)ELT313(Kar); 2006[3]STR404
ORDER1. It is the case of the Petitioners in all these Civil Petitions that out of an order dated 27th of June 2003 made in ST Nos. 4/2002, 6/2002, 10/2002 and 15/2002, the questions of law set out herein-below would arise for consideration:1. Whether the reviewing authority's interpretation of provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 in Order-in-Review No. 8/2002, dated 29.1.2002/1.2.2002 that minimum penalty imposable under the said Section is Rs. 100/- per day is saved by law?2. Whether the Final Order No. 843 to 846/2003, dated 27.6.2003 of CEGAT [2003 (156) E.L.T. 84 (Tribunal)] setting aside the Order-in-Review No. 8/2002, dated 29.1.2002/1.2.2002 wherein it was interpreted that the minimum penalty imposable under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is Rs. 100/- only and not Rs. 100/- per day is maintainable in law?2. Therefore, it is the contention of Shri Veerendra Sharma, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, that a direction ma...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4813; 2004(7)KarLJ518
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J. 1. What has been challenged in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the ruling of XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and special Judge for CBI Cases for Bangalore City, holding that a witness, while he is being examined as a witness in a Court, is entitled to look into a mahazar for refreshing his memory.2. In the trial of the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 read with 120B IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, RW. 6-Narayanappa, former Police Inspector, Banasawadi Police Station, Bangalore City, was examined on 29.11.2002 to show that he had accompanied the raiding party and that he was present at the time of seizure of certain arms from the possession of the accused. After major portion of the examination-in-chief was over, with regard to the particulars of the weapons, vehicles, properties allegedly seized from the possession of each accused, the witness sought for permissi...
Tag this Judgment!Ankola Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., by Its General Manager and ors. V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ251
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions filed by the Co-operative Banks, Societies or institutions the facts are common or similar and the issue involved is the same. Hence, they arc all heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Government Order No. CMW 283 CLM 96 dated 17.2.2001 by which audit fee is revised by the State Government. It is the case of the petitioners that the levy and collection of audit fee on the basis of Working Capital or Turn-over is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 30 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules (herein after called as 'Rules'). According to the petitioners, the revised audit fee has no co-relation to the actual service rendered by the Auditors and other staff of the Audit Department in auditing. Since the impugned Government Order is issued on the basis of the proposal sent by the Director of Co-operative Audit, the learned Counsel who have appeared fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kuratti Veerappa Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4518; 2004(7)KarLJ513
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The petitioner sought for quashing of Annexure-D dated 27.11.2001 communicated to the petitioner in pursuance of the letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, dated 12.9.2001.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner Sri Kuratti Veerappa, being the owner of the land RS No. 9B/2A of Sutagatti Village, Hubli Taluk, measuring about 5 acres equivalent to 20, 234.8286 Sq. Mts. submitted a declaration as required under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 showing excess land as 18, 734.2286 excluding the area of 1, 500 Sq. Mts. The Deputy Commissioner also issued notification declaring that 18, 734.2286 is the excess of land as required under Section 10(3) of the Act. At this stage, the petitioner filed WP No. 2146/91 which came to be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law. At...
Tag this Judgment!C. Channe Gowda and anr. Vs. High Court of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Regi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4633
ORDERB. Padmaraj, J. 1. The two petitioners herein, who are working as Court officers on the establishment of the 1st respondent, being aggrieved by the notification dated 2/5.9.2003 issued by the 1sl respondent in so far as it promotes Respondents 2 and 3 as Assistant Registrars ignoring the seniority of the petitioners, have presented these two Writ Petitions. Since common questions of law and facts are involved and the relief sought by the petitioners is against a single notification, these two Writ Petitions filed by the two different petitioners are conveniently dealt with together and they are accordingly disposed of by this common order.1A) The averments made in the Writ Petition are the following:2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka with the approval of the Governor of Karnataka has made the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Selvi and ors. Vs. State by Koramangala Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(7)KarLJ501
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. The petitioners-accused 1 to 3, who have been directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate in the investigation for undergoing Narco-analysis Test in Victoria Hospital at Bangalore, have challenged the impugned order dated 26-6-2004 passed by the Court of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.2. Facts in brief, which gave rise to the present matter, are:The complainant namely, Kavita, is the daughter of accused 1 and 2. She and deceased Shivakumar (who belonged to different caste from that of Kavita) fell in love and married against the wishes of accused 1 and 2. According to the complainant, on 10-4-2004, at about 8.00 p.m., when she and her deceased husband were returning near L.L.T. Guest House after having had eatables in a bakery situated in front of L.L.T. College, a maruthi van bearing No. KA-04-MA3167 came and four persons kidnapped her husband in that van. So, she lodged a complaint, registered at Crime No. 219 of 2...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Bacha Pujari Vs. Bandu S. Chougala and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC649; 2005ACJ1056; ILR2005KAR697; 2005(4)KarLJ45
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. Personal injuries maybe inflicted by means of a large number of very different torts. The tort of negligence qualifies to take easily the larger share. An unfortunate victim of an accident is in appeal. His right leg has been amputated.2. In an accident which occurred on 09.04.1993 at about 11.45 p.m., the claimant-appellant was going to his house by the side of the road. At that point of time, a tractor being driven with high speed came from Manajari side and hit the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the claimant-appellant fell down and sustained severe injuries to his both legs. Immediately after the accident the claimant-appellant was shifted to the Hospital. Thereafter, for a better and further treatment he was taken to Wanless Hospital at Miraj. According to the claimant-appellant, even as on the date of the filing of the claim petition, he was undergoing treatment. Prior to the accident, the claimant was serving as a supplier in Nand Govind Hotel at Ankali....
Tag this Judgment!Somasekhar and anr. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal Sub-divisio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(7)KarLJ498
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners claim to be Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Bevoor Grama Panchayat, Yelburga Taluk, Koppal District. Petitioners are weary of facing a no-confidence motion for the purpose of consideration of which a meeting is fixed in terms of a notice dated 17-8-2004, issued to the members of the Panchayat by the Assistant Commissioner apprising them that such a meeting will be held on 9-9-2004.2. It is the legality of this notice that is questioned in this writ petition inter alia on the ground that the notice is not valid in law; that the requisite procedure prescribed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 have not been followed or complied with and a meeting fixed in pursuance of such an invalid notice cannot be held to be tenable or a valid meeting and as such unless the meeting is one that follows a valid notice, it should not be permitted to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »