Karnataka Court December 2005 Judgments
H.L. Nellashekara Vs. the Food Inspector Primary Health Center
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1561; 2006FAJ213; ILR2006KAR933
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This revision is by the accused, being aggrieved of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 19/1992 by the Learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, dated 10.05.2001 dismissing the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No. 954/1988 by the Learned Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Hunsur, dated 24.03.1992 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00, in default to undergo R.I. for one month.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The accused Sri H.L. Neelashekara, a petty merchant, Hanagodu village, Hunsur taluk, was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) alleging that when P. W. 1 -K. Raghavendra visited the shop of the accused on 22.12.1986 at about 2.00 p.m. found the accused storing and selling adulterated Niger seed oil and that the Inspector-P.W.1 purchased 375 grams of Niger see...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Subramaniyam Vs. Hotel Sanman
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR707; 2006(3)KarLJ684
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.7.2005 passed by the City Civil Court on I.A.I directing the petitioner to pay the admitted arrears of rent of Rs. 23,000/- and to continue to pay the admitted rent, failing which the defence of the defendant stands struck off.2. As required under Rule 3-b of the Writ Proceedings Rules 1977, as amended by Writ Proceedings (II Amendment) Rules, 2005 the petitioner has given a synopsis. Office has raised an objection that in the synopsis events to be explained in brief but not the annexures, and returned the writ papers for compliance of office objections.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply to the said office objections requested the office to post the matter before Court for orders regarding office objections. Accordingly, the matter is listed before me for considering the validity of the objections raised by the office.4. Sri Shaker Shetty, Learned Counsel appearing for ...
Tag this Judgment!D.i. Narayana Swamy S/O Late Dodda Thimmarayappa Rep. by His Pa Holder ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ2566
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. A maxi cab belonging to the petitioner No. 1 in MVC No. 602/1997 is damaged in collusion with the offending lorry. The petitioner No. 2 is the insurer of the maxi cab. The respondent No. 1 in the petition is the insurer of the lorry. The petitioner No. 1 had filed petition initially seeking compensation. The insurer reimbursed the damage to his insured and made an application by impleading as petitioner No. 2 to come on record so as to enforce the right of subrogation against the offending vehicle. The Tribunal granted the request and the insurer came to be impleaded as the petitioner No. 2. The Tribunal however, subsequently dismissed the petition on the ground that the damage caused to the petitioner No. 1 is reimbursed by his insurer-petitioner No. 2 and therefore, the duplicated claim against respondents 1 and 2 does not lie for the same cause of action. Both the petitioners are in appeal challenging the order.2. The petitioner No. 1 is entitled to maintain a ...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Now Rep. by Regional M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ2662
K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The petitioners in MVC No. 1369/2001 is awarded compensation for the death of their son Hussain Walikar in a sum of Rs. 290100/-. The tribunal directed the owner and insurer to pay the compensation. The insurer s in appeal seeking avoidance of the liability,2. The deceased is said to be coolie travelling in the tractor at the relevant time, Regulation 28 of the Karnataka Motor vehicle Rules permits only the driver to be seated in the tractor, if trailer is attached to the tractor then the coolies or labourers employed in connection with operation of the tract or-trailer can travel, But in the ease of tractor, driver alone is permitted. The carriage of any passengers in a tractor is prohibited. The policy of insurance and does not cover the risk of coolies carried in a tractor without a trailer. In that view the award made against the insurer is bad in law. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.3. However, the compensation shall be payable by the owner.4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnappa Shivalingappa Jeevani and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1579
ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 of the code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the accused in C.C. No. 819/1999 on the file of the Additional JMFC, Gokak challenging their conviction and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2000 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. This revision petition is directed against the confirmation of their conviction by the appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and consequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.2. The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows :Mahadev Bandroli (the deceased), aged about nine years and his sister Laxmi Bandroli, aged about twelve years resided with their father Yallappa Kareppa Bandroli (thecomplainant/PW-1) in Gujanatti village of Mudhol Taluk. Mahadev was studying in the third standard. Yallappa's younger brothe...
Tag this Judgment!Husen Peera Vs. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Represent ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1032
ORDERB.S. Patil, J. 1. By the impugned endorsement dated 22.03.2005 the request made by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground is rejected on the ground that the petitioner being the son of the second wife of the deceased the provisions governing appointment on compassionate grounds as in force in the respondent-Corporation do not permit such an appointment being given.2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the son of the second wife of the deceased-employee Sri. Husen Basha who expired on 24.02.1997 while in service. Since the petitioner was a minor at the time when his father died, after attaining majority he has applied seeking compassionate appointment. The relevant regulations providing for compassionate appointment known as the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Recruitment (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Regulations, 1997, provide that the dependent of the deceased employee seeking appointment shall be his or her legally wedded spouse and 'their' sons wh...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sayyadama and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: II(2007)ACC692
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioners in M.V.C. No. 1369 of 2001 are awarded compensation for the death of their son Hussain Walikar in a sum of Rs. 2,90,100.Tribunal directed the owner and insurer to pay the compensation. The insurer is in appeal seeking avoidance of the liability.2. The deceased is said to be coolie travelling in the tractor at the relevant time. Rule 28 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules permits only the driver to be seated in the tractor, if trailer is attached to the tractor then the coolies or labourers employed in connection with operation of the tractor-trailer can travel. But in the case of tractor, driver alone is permitted. The carriage of any passengers in a tractor is prohibited. The policy of insurance does not cover the risk of coolies carried in a tractor without a trailer. In that view the award made against the insurer is bad in law. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.3. However, the compensation shall be payable by the owner.4. The amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Swathi S. Patil Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Its Secre ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT218(Kar); ILR2006KAR674; 2006(1)KarLJ441; 2008[9]STR434
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner Swathi S Patil is before us seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in O.A. No. 564 of 2004 at Annexure-Z. She also sought for quashing of Memorandum dated 24.11.2005 at Annexure-Q and the order dated 29.6.2004 at Annexure-T in the case on hand.2. Facts in brief: Petitioner joined Indian Revenue Services in 1974, She was working as Deputy Commissioner at Belgaum. She passed number of orders in her official capacity. First respondent, in respect of certain orders passed by the petitioner in 1988 and 1989, including the orders passed under Section 144-A in five cases posted before her, for some ulterior motive issued a memorandum dated 20.12.1995 assailing the quasi judicial orders passed by her as wrong without any evidence. Petitioner denied the allegations made against her by a reply dated 11.6.1996. Enquiry was held in respect of the said memorandum of c...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Krishna Trading Company Vs. the Agricultural Produce Market Commi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR2931; 2006(1)KarLJ433
H.N. Nagamohandas, J.1. The appellant has called in question the order dated 1-4-2004 in W.P. No. 257 of 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.2. The appellant is a dealer in raw cashew nuts and pepper and its place of business is in the notified market area of Puttur in Dakshina Kannada District. During the year 1992-93, the appellant purchased raw cashew nuts and pepper from the farmers and paid market fee of Rs. 1,37,430.50 to the respondent-the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Puttur. Thereafter, the appellant sold the raw cashew nuts and pepper in the same year and in the same market area. The respondent-Market Committee, vide their letter dated 20-11-1993 levied a market fee of Rs. 1,41,054.10 on the second sale transaction made by the appellant. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order dated 20-11-1993 levying market fee, approached this Court in W.P. No. 43778 of 1993 on the ground that it is not liable to pay market fee on the second sal...
Tag this Judgment!Jayadeva Trading Company Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR1100; (2007)6VST633(Karn)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition claims that it is engaged in carrying on business of arecanut and registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act'). The petitioner was assessed to sales tax on the file of the respondent-Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Taxes in relation to the assessment year 1994-95, Assessment under the CST Act was concluded in the petitioner's case by the assessing authority. However, while so concluding the assessment, the assessing authority had disallowed the exemption in respect of the inter-State sales of arecanut on the ground that the correspondent purchase of the arecanut were not subject to levy of sales tax under the Act. The assessing authority apart from determining the basic tax liability in respect of the inter-State sale of arecanut by invokin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »