Karnataka Court October 2005 Judgments

Syndicate Bank Vs. A. Raghupathy Bhat

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR338]; ILR2005KAR5587; 2006(1)KarLJ146; (2006)IILLJ171Kant

N. Kumar, J.1. Appellant has challenged in this appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the appellant-bank to pay the difference of salary to the respondent, during the period of suspension, after he was acquitted by a criminal Court.2. Appellant is a nationalized bank. At the relevant time, respondent was working at the Ilkal branch of the bank. Against the respondent a criminal case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in case No. 19/1994 before the II Additional Sessions Court, Raichur. Respondent was taken into custody by the police and thereafter he was given to judicial custody. Appellant in terms of regulation 12 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter for short called as 'the regulations') placed the respondent under suspension. According to the prev...

Basappa @ Basanagowda Vs. State of Karnataka by Jayapura Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2006)DMC605; ILR2005KAR5997; 2006(5)KarLJ303

ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This revision is by the accused being aggrieved of the judgment in Crl. A. No. 111/2003 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Mysore allowing the appeal in part by modifying the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months as against the judgment in CC No. 820/2000 on the file of the JMFC, II Court, Mysore dated 31.07.2003 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. The learned JMFC, II Court, Mysore recorded a finding of guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian...

Nirmala W/O Decd. S.R. Kantaraj, Vs. Ravindra Suvarna R/O Shekhar Suva ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Sri C. Shankar Reddy, learned Counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No. 2 in both these appeals.2. One S.R. Kantharaj and his son Prasanna Kumar died in the motor vehicle accident. The wife and children of S.R. Kantharaj have filed MVC No. 205/03 and the same petitioners as mother, brother and sister have filed MVC No. 204/03 seeking compensation.3. The relevant provisions of Sections 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act reads thus:1A. Suit For Compensation To The Family Of A Person For Loss Occasioned To It By His Death By Act ional Wrong.- Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default/ and the act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensured) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and ...

The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Vs. Shivu and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5951; 2006(1)KarLJ152

S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This reference and criminal appeal arise from the judgment of conviction dated 29-7-2005 and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in S.C.No. 113/04. In this case, the two accused are charged, tried and convicted by the learned Trial Judge for the offences under Sections 376 and 302 both read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and on finding them guilty on both the counts, are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence Under Section 376 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and to the death punishment for the offence Under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Since the death punishment requires confirmation by this Court, the same has been referred under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it has been registered as Criminal R.C. No. 8/2005. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the sentence, the accused have approached this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1394/2005.2. The brief fa...

Sadashivu Balappa Samagar Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ899

A.C. Kabbin, J.1. By judgment dated 26-2-2003, the Sessions Judge, Bamako convicted the accused in S.C. No. 74/2002 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal.2. The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows:Anasuya (the deceased) is the sister of the accused Sadashiv Balappa Samagar. She had been married to one Ramappa of Mamadapur Village 13 years prior to the incident. About three months prior to May 2002, when the deceased had come to the house of her parents, she found the accused attempting to cut the penis of her child Shivappa aged about 5 years. That angered Anasuya, who abused and scolded the accused for his act. That created bad-blood between the accused and Anasuya. About 45 days prior to 29-5-2002, Anasuya came with her chi...

Smt. Usha Suresh Vs. R.V. Shashidaran

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)BC660; 2006CriLJ904

Manjula Chellur, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The appellant before this Court is the complainant before the trial Court. The un-disputed facts in the present case are the respondent/accused was working for the husband of the appellant by name Mr. Suresh Kumar. The husband of the appellant was running M/s. Uma Enterprises at Bangalore. Normally, Mr. Suresh Kumar was looking after the said business and during his absence, his wife was managing the said work. The accused was working as the Manager in the said M/s. Uma Enterprises since October, 1998.3. It is the case of the complainant that in the year 1999, the accused intended to purchase a flat in M/s. Pranam Foundation, Indranagar, Bangalore and he approached her and also her husband for financial assistance as the accused was aware that the complainant's-husband was receiving a substantial sale proceeds of the fiat sold by them at Delhi. The accused was employed in M/s...

Smt. Siddamma Mallappa Managuli Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5679; 2006(4)KarLJ647

ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the Government Order dated 9-9-2003, copy at Annexure-'C' to writ petition, in passing whereof, the respondent No. 1 -State had granted exemption from the application of the provisions of Rule 27(2)(a)(ii) of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Rules, 1971, in favour of the respondent No. 3. The said exemption was granted by exercising powers vested in it under Section 20 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964.2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:The respondent No. 3 has applied for grant of no objection certificate for establishing a permanent cinema in property bearing TMC No. 752/8 in Sindagi town, before the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, as required under Rule 26 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Rules).That the respondent No. 1 - State had earlier issued what was termed by it as notification, for relaxation of the provisions of Rule 2...

Sri Sanganagouda Shankaragouda Mulki Patil Vs. the State of Karnataka ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1090]; ILR2006KAR284; 2006(4)KarLJ430

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions refusing to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Drawing Teacher under the 6th respondent-Institution as affirmed in appeal by order dated 17.07.1999 passed by the Director of Public Instructions. Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 13.05.2002 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government (Primary and Secondary Education) rejecting the revision petition filed by him invoking the provisions under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act;)2. The facts that are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case can be set out as under.Petitioner was appointed as Drawing Teacher under the 6th respondent - Institution on 28.07.1998 and a proposal was sent by the Institution for approval of his appointment. The Director of Public Instructions - respondent no.4 herein rejected the pro...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ruth and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ1226

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioners in MVC 386/93 awarded compensation of Rs. 250000/- for the death of one Dr. David Rubdi in the motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal directed the owner and insurer to pay the compensation. The insurer has filed this appeal seeking avoidance of the liability on the ground that no policy was in existence at the time of accident.2. The appellants in the objection statement contend that the premium was collected on 15.3.1990 at 2.15 p.m., and cover note is issued mentioning the time of payment of premium. The policy is issued w.e.f. 16.3.90 to 15.3.91. The accident occurred on 16.3.90 at 11 a.m.,3. As per the provisions of Section 64V-B of the Insurance Act, the liability of the insurer will arise from the time of payment of premium. In the instant case, the premium is paid at 2.15 p.m., and accident has occurred at 11 a.m., which is prior payment of premium and issuance of cover note.4. The facts stated by the appellant may be true. The cover note is a...

Ramdev Agencies Vs. Additional Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)6VST644(Karn)

H.L. Dattu, J.1. This appeal is filed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 3955 and 3956 of 19991 and connected matters disposed of on March 8, 1999.2. Appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the KST Act', for short) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the CST Act', for short) and is engaged in the business of sales of mill-made and handloom cotton handkerchiefs. In the annual returns filed, it had claimed exemption on the sales of handkerchiefs, on the ground that the mill-made and handloom cotton handkerchiefs are exempt from levy of sales tax by virtue of entry 8-A of the Fifth Schedule to the KST Act. This claim of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority, who has levied tax on the sales of mill-made cotton handkerchiefs and handloom cotton handkerchiefs by applying entry 7-A of Part 'T' of the Second Schedule to the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of assessment so made, the...