Karnataka Court June 2005 Judgments
Sajjad and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka by Ig Prisons and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3707; ILR2005KAR3313
ORDERA.M. Farooq, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondent to release the petitioners from the alleged illegal custody.2. The petitioners have alleged that they were arrested along with the notorious criminal Tanveer Ahmed @ Tanveer on 8/5/2004. The first petitioner was thereafter produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 9/5/2004 and police custody was obtained until he was remanded to the judicial custody. That likewise, the second petitioner was also remanded to judicial custody till 31/5/2004. That thereafter their judicial remand was being extended without being produced before the Court. It is stated that it was mandatory on the part of the police to produce the petitioners before the Court and it is only then that the Court could remand them to judicial custody. It is stated that the petitioners were transferred to Belgaum Central Prison from Bangalore and from there to Bellary Ce...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and ors. Vs. the Karnataka Election Commission and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3323
ORDERH.N. Naga Mohan Das, J.1. Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi wrote in the weekly 'Harijan' as under:-'True Democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the center. It has to be worked from below by the people of every village....''Independence must begin at the bottom. Thus, every village will be a republic or Panchayat having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world. It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any on slough from without. Thus, ultimately, it is individual who is the unit. This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. It will be free and voluntary play of mutual forces. Such a society is necessarily highly cultured in which every man and woman knows what he or she wants and, what is more, knows that no one should want anything that others can...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Narayan Gulawani and ors. Vs. Smt. Vimalabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR3555
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree by the District Judge in RA 326/1989 dated 28.2.2000 in setting aside the judgment and decree of the 1 Addl. Civil Judge, Belgaum in OS 105/1983 in so far as rejecting the relief of specific performance of the contract.2. Suit OS 105/1983 was filed by plaintiff/respondent before the Civil Judge, Belgaum for specific performance of contract against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., property in CTS 1438/1 measuring 91 x 14 sq.mtrs situate at Belgaum and also for a direction to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff accepting Rs. 17,000/- and put the plaintiff in possession of the property and in the alternative, to pass a decree for refund of earnest money of Rs. 12,000/- with interest and to award compensation.3. Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 are the owners of the suit property and defendant 4 is the general power of attorney holder for defend...
Tag this Judgment!Mac Charles (i) Ltd. Vs. Chandrashekar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)44; III(2006)BC143; 2005CriLJ3700; ILR2005KAR3648; 2006(2)KarLJ570
ORDERB. Padmaraj, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred to this Bench for decision by an order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice:1. Where for a considerable period the accused cannot be apprehended, despite efforts by Court, whether case against him may be separated in terms of Rule 2 of chapter IV of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice?2. Whether substituted service is permissible in a criminal case?3. Whether an accused can be proceeded exparte and a decision may be given exparte regarding his guilt or otherwise of the matter?2. The above reference to this Bench arises this way:A Complaint Petition came to be filed by the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the 12 accused persons alleging the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial Court. The accused No. 1 in that case is the company and the accused Nos.2 to 10 are the Directors of the said company who are alleged to be the persons incharge of the day to...
Tag this Judgment!Dolfy a Pais@adolphys Joseph Pais and anr. Vs. Mrs. Lalitha therasa Se ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4137
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Prl.District Judge, DK.,Mangalore, in RA. 15/1997 dated 27.9.2002 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 99/95 by the Court of I Addl.Civil Judge & CJM., Mangalore, dated 22.7.1997 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.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 plaintiff represented by her husband-PA holder filed O.S.No. 2/95 seeking for the following reliefs:'1. For a declaration that the decree dated 16.8.1976 in O.S.397/76 on the file of the Munsiff of Mangalore was obtained by collusion and fraud in order to defeat the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and the same is null and void, not enforceable and not binding on the plaintiff.2. To cancel or set aside the decree dated 16.8.1976 in O.S.397/76 on the file of the Munsiff of Mangalore ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gopalakrishna Bhat Vs. the Chief Executive Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4220
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order Dated 3.6.2002, Annexure 'A' passed by the 1st respondent appellate authority while dismissing the appeal against the revision of property tax by the 2nd respondent is one without application of mind, cryptic and tantamounts to denial of justice.2. An examination of Annexure-A discloses that the appellate authority has not set out any reasons for dismissing the appeal muchless for affirming the order appealed against the contentions urged by the petitioner in the appeal are not even adverted to in the order. The order is cryptic, is without application of mind, and suffers from the vice of denial of justice. There can be no doubt that the grievance of the petitioner is well founded.3. The Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. C.I.T. Mysore : [2005]273ITR56(SC) while holding that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice, observed thus:'It is true that in an order of affirmatio...
Tag this Judgment!Malnad College of Engineering Represented by Its Chairman Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5022
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. In this writ petition the Petitioner - College has challenged the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 06.08.1998 (Annexure 'A') whereby the 2nd respondent has permitted the excess students admitted by the Petitioner to the B.E. Course for the academic year 1995-1996 to appear in the 6th Semester Examination subject to payment of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and on certain other conditions.2. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:3. Petitioner is an Engineering College, affiliated to the 2n Respondent - University during the relevant period. It is contended by the Petitioner that for the academic year 1995-96 it had admitted 5% of its Management quota by 16.10.1995 out of total number of 570 seats. Out of the remaining 542 seats, the Government could fill up only 471 seats by 16.10.1995 leaving a balance of 71 seats unfilled on that date. The College filled up 49 seats of the balance of 71 seats, which had remained unfilled. The GET Cell sent 71 st...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Sukumar Bhavu Gude
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ817; ILR2005KAR5459; 2006(5)KarLJ458
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.4.2000 passed by the XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, in Spl. Case No. 100/97, whereby the Special Judge discharged the respondent accused for offence punishable under Section 420 and Sections 8, 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The brief facts leading to this case are that during 1994 the complainant was working as a casual worker in P & T Department, R.M.S., Bangalore. On 10.5.1994 he lodged a complaint against the respondent-accused on the allegation that he had induced him to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- for getting a permanent job in the department. Accordingly he was sent with an interview letter and was interviewed on 28.5.1993. The said sum was paid by the complainant prior to getting the interview letter. But after the interview neither the complainant has not got any appointment order nor the responde...
Tag this Judgment!N. Selvamani Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2007)8VST699(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The order dated September 30, 2003, copy at annexure A to the petition, passed by the third respondent-the Commercial Tax Officer, under which certain tax payable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, was determined as also certain penalties levied is sought to be quashed by filing this writ petition.2. The submission of Sri Lakshmisha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner is the owner of a goods carriage vehicle ; that he had allowed his vehicle for transportation by a company located at Mangalore for transporting their goods; that while the vehicle was transporting certain goods belonging to the said person which had been checked at the check-post and the authorities under the Act on noticing certain irregularities had foisted certain tax liability and the petitioner being called upon to make good the tax liability and penalty, as the owner of the vehicle, which was carrying the goods, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sub...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2007)10VST796(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by a person, who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'). The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for certain tax benefits in terms of a notification issued by the Government under the provisions of the Section 19C of the Act.2. The present grievance of the petitioner is that because of the provisions of Rule 20C(1)(c) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules'), the petitioner has been virtually subjected to tax liability in respect of the goods manufactured and transported to the sub-offices or such branches of the petitioner as also that of an agent within the State.3. The petitioner in fact is aggrieved by the assessment order dated May 16, 2005, copy produced as annexure H to the petition, passed by the fourth respondent--the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, whereunder certain tax liability is determined on the petition...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »