Karnataka Court December 2005 Judgments

Mrs. Shaila P. Prabhu Vs. Nagendra K. Mallya and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2007)BC377; 2006CriLJ1554; 2006(3)KarLJ649

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The petitioner herein who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1407/2005 pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court Hall No. 7, Bangalore city has sought for setting aside/modification of the order dated 8-11-2005 passed by the said Court, by which, a condition is imposed on the petitioner to deposit 25% of the cheque amount, while suspending the sentence passed by the trial Court.2. The petitioner herein is convicted in C.C. No. 15062 of 2003 by the 19th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore by the Judgment and order dated 28-10-2005 for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 90,00,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 89,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. It is relevant to mention here itself that the amount involved in the cheque is R...

Talaguppa Plywood Products (P) Limited Vs. the Employees Provident Fun ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(109)FLR209]; ILR2006KAR1179; (2006)IILLJ593Kant

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is calling in question the order dated 12-7-2005 passed by the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount determined by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner towards the damages awarded pending disposal of the appeal.2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Sub-Regional Office, Hubli, by order dated 3-6-2004 directed that for the period from April 1994 to February 2002, the petitioner herein shall pay a sum of Rs. 28,60,448/ towards damages payable for non-payment of contribution to the Employees Provident Fund Accounts within time. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has further directed that the amount of damages shall be paid by the employer into the respective Employees Provident Fund Account maintained at the State Bank of India within 15 days of the date of receipt of the order failing which action shall be taken Under Section 8B to 8G of the Employee...

Dr. M. Sumithra Vs. the Bangalore University Jnana Bharathi and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(109)FLR592]; ILR2006KAR1122

ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner is working as senior grade lecturer at Kannada Adhyayana Kendra, Centre for Kannada Studies, Jnana Bharathi, Bangalore University. She made a complaint against Professor Siddalingaiah, Director, Centre for Kannada Studies, to the Hon'ble Minister for Higher Education and to the Sub-Inspector, Jnanabharathi Police Station, regarding the alleged sexual harassment, A University Committee for Combating Violence and Sexual Harassment for Women at Work Place, held an enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner and after such enquiry it exonerated Professor Siddalingaiah. In other words, it held the allegations in the complaint were not substantiated. In the report it also recorded a finding that the petitioner, Professor Siddalingaiah and Ph.D. student C.M. Rajanna have misconducted themselves in the course of their employment. The material produced before Court shows that Item No. 3 of the agenda in the extraordinary meeting held by the Syndicate on 29.3.2...

Yashodaraiah (Deceased) by L. Rs. Vs. S.B. Payidevaru and ors.

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the LRs., of the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mandya in RA. No. 29/1997 dated 8-7-2002 allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of II Addl. Munsiff, Mandya, in O. S. No. 637/92 dated 4-1-1997 and consequently decreeing the suit for redemption of mortgage and to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows:The plaintiffs filed the suit for redemption of mortgage and for delivery of possession of the schedule property from the defendant.3. It is averred in the plaint that the suit schedule property originally belonged to late Sri Anantharajaiah. He died on 8-4-1955. Anantharajaiah had mortgaged the suit schedule property to B.P. Nagarajaiah under a registered mortgage deed dated 10-10-1938....

Dilip Kumar Alias Srinivas and anr. Vs. Damodar Narayanrao Rammangudka ...

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhabhit, J.1. This appeal by defendants 1 to 7 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Dist. Judge, Gulbarga in R.A. No. 17/01 dated 30-6-2003 dismissing the appeal and cross-objections preferred by the defendant No. 2 and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gulbarga, in O.S. No. 203/ 1995 dated 10-8-2001 wherein the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/12th share in the suit schedule house bearing 1-3-185 situated at Chincholi and in suit lands measuring 21 acres 11 guntas both situated at Doulatpur village in Chincholi Taluk and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land in Sy. No. 125 measuring 4 acres 27 guntas and for the relief of future mesne profits of the suit properties and further ordering that defendants 2 to 5 are also entitled to partit...

Mr. S. Krishna Swamy Vs. Smt. Vani Prasannakumar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR729; 2006(4)KarLJ327

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration is:Whether there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent herein?2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Revision Petition may be stated as under:On 20.6.1993, the Respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- with petitioner's father and occupied the petition schedule premises for three years, as per the agreement for mortgage with possession (in short 'the agreement') with a condition 'NO INTEREST NO RENT' basis. On 30.10.1996 the petitioner's father settled the premises under a registered deed of settlement in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner issued a legal notice to the Respondent calling upon him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises in favour of the Petitioner as the 3 years period expired on 19.6.1996, but in vain. Therefore, the Petitioner filed an eviction petition in H.R.C. No. 578/2000 ag...

State of Karnataka Vs. Channappa Satgirappa Andani

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1575

ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This revision is by the State, assailing the order dated 30-11-2002 in Karnataka Lokayukta P.S. Crime No. 4/2000 by the learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad, ordering for release of the properties mentioned in the seizure Panchanama.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The accused Channappa Satgirappa Andani while working as Superintending Engineer was found amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, whereas the Lokayukta registered a case in Karnataka Lokayukta P.S. Crime No. 4/2000 for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and a raid was conducted on 18-2-2000 and seized in all 160 articles detailed in the panchanama subjected to P.F. While the investigation is in progress, the accused filed an application under Section 467, Cr. P.C. for release of Item Nos. 1 to 107 mentioned in the properties seized. As could b...

North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation by Its Managing Direct ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006ACJ2553; AIR2006Kant159

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Sri. S.S. Patil Googihal takes notice for the respondent in all the above appeals. All the appeals arise out of the same accident.2. The Petitioners were the inmates of the KSRTC bus. One of the passengers by name Gangadhar Bhavi was stealthily carrying-the explosives. The carriage of explosives in the passenger bus is prohibited and made punishable. For some accidental reason, the hidden explosives exploded resulting in the personal injuries to the petitioners. The tribunal has awarded compensation to the petitioners and directed the NEKRTC to pay the compensation. Hence, the appeal.3. Sri. D. Vijayakumar, the Counsel for the appellants argued that there is no negligence on the part of the conductor and driver of the bus. The passenger in violation of the rules was stealthily carrying the explosives and that police have filed a case against Gangadhar Bhavi for the offence of carrying the explosives. Hence, the appellant does not incur any vicarious liability, It ...

State of Karnataka Vs. K. Ganapathi Bhat

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This revision is by the State being aggrieved of the order passed in S.C. No. 34/2003 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, D. K., Mangalore recording a finding that there are no sufficient grounds to frame charges for the offence under Section 307, IPC.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The accused Sri K. Ganapathi Bhat was charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 448, 326 and 307, IPC in Crime No. 167/02 of Bantwal Town Police Station alleging that the accused Sri K. Ganapathi Bhat jumped inside the compound wall of the house of Dr. Prabhakar Bhat. It was seen by Mahabala Poojary as well as Nonayya Poojary. Suspecting the accused, they followed towards the house of Dr. Prabhakar Bhat. When the door was opened by Dr. Prabhakar Bhat's mother, the accused forcefully entered the house. At the same time, when Mahabala Poojary entered the house, the accused stabbed with kinife causing as many as 12 incised wounds whereas, the mother of Dr. Prabhakar...

B.S. Sanjeeva Murthy Vs. Smt. K. Vagdevi

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. This is tenant's revision petition filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, challenging the order dated 2-8-2005 made on I.A. No in filed in H.R.C. No. 680 of 2003 on the file of the 2nd Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.2. The petitioner/tenant is represented by Sri V. Srinivas. The respondent/landlady is represented by M/s. Rumar and Kumar.3. The lower Court records were called for and they are before me.4. Heard arguments.5. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the revision petition may be stated as under:The respondent/landlady filed eviction petition in H.R.C. No. 680 of 2003 on the file of Court of Small Causes at Bangalore City against the petitioner/tenant under Section 27(2)(j) and (r) read with Section 31(1)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, 'the Rent Act 5). The tenant entered appearance through his Counsel on 29-3-2004, and the case was adjourned for filing objections to main petition. On 26-6...