Karnataka Court January 2006 Judgments

Syed Siraj Pasha and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2006)DMC18; 2006(1)KarLJ571

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is filed for quashing of the First Information Report registered by the Sindhanur Police against the petitioners and also to quash the Private Complaint No. 35 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindhanur.2. The brief facts are to the effect that a complaint was lodged under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. by respondent 2 herein against the petitioners alleging that, following the marriage of respondent 2 with the first petitioner, there has been continuous harassment by respondent 2's husband and her in-laws in connection with the demand of dowry and respondent 2 went through a very painful period because of the cruel treatment given to her by her husband and his family members and, therefore, a complaint was lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petit...

Smt. Nazimunnisa Vs. State by Vijayanagar Police Station and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1573; I(2006)DMC769; ILR2006KAR1621; 2006(1)KarLJ577

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 13944 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the case are to the effect that the petitioner lodged the complaint with Vijayanagar Police against her husband Hidayathulla and his family members on the ground that subsequent to the marriage on 9-3-1998, the petitioner was harassed by her husband's family in connection with demand of dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with one house, jewels and other household articles and the petitioner underwent torture both physically and mentally by her husband's family, which finally led the complainant to lodge the complaint which ultimately came to be registered as C.C. No. 13944 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohi...

Madaiah Vs. Shivakaleshwara Temple and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR974; 2006(1)KarLJ574

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 31st October, 1989 on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore in No. ALRA.5/88, allowing and setting aside the order passed by Land Tribunal, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura, dated 17th February, 1987 in proceeding Nos. INM.40, 41, 42, 43 and 44/1984-85, has presented the instant revision petition.2. The instant revision petition is filed only insofar as it relates to setting aside the grant made in favour of petitioner in respect of Sy. No. 17 measuring 5 acres registered by the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura by its order dated 17th February, 1987.3. The petitioner claiming to be tenant, had filed Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 17 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas, situate at Madivala Village. The said application had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura along with applications filed ...

The Commissioner of Customs Vs. A. Mahesh Raj

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(195)ELT261(Kar)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ Petition by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, a statutory functionary in terms of Section 3 of the Customs Act, 1962 [for short, the Act], as one class of officer of the Customs Department, questioning the legality of the order dated 26-9-2001, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition, passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission [for short, the Settlement Commission], Additional Bench, Chennai in proceedings Settlement Application No. SA(C) 10/2001.2. The order passed by the Settlement Commission is sought to be quashed on the premise that the commission lacks jurisdiction to settle the case at the instance of the respondent to whom the adjudicating authority under the Act had issued a showcause notice in terms of Section 124 of the Act, calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why correct duty should not be assessed and realized from the respondent in respect of certain goods which the responde...

Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. the Regional Transport Offic ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(1)KarLJ491

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by M/s. K.S.F.C. - a State-owned Financial Corporation under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, who have brought upon themselves certain unwanted and avoidable liabilities such as the tax payable in respect of a motor vehicle, for the purchase of which the institution had financed a borrower and had seized the vehicle for non-payment of the borrowed amount, way back in the year 1994 i.e., on 24-3-1994. After such seizure it appears the vehicle had been parked in the factory premises of another unit, also seized by the Corporation and had filed a non-user report in Form 30 with effect from 16-8-1999. It is also the version that the Corporation has paid the arrears of tax in respect of the vehicle prior to the seizure.2. Petitioner-Corporation is now aggrieved by a demand raised on them to the extent of Rs. 1,35,374/- being the tax payable in respect of this vehicle, as if it was on road for the period from 1-9-1999 to 30-4-2004.3. S...

V. Narayanaswamy Vs. Smt. Doddavenkatamma and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR983; 2006(1)KarLJ566

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision petition by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment dated 30-8-2003 passed by the lower Appellate Court dismissing his appeal in M.F.A. No. 22 of 2001 and affirming the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the petition filed by him in Miscellaneous No. 118 of 1995 under Order 9, Rule 4 (should be Rule 9) of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') for setting aside of the order dated 18-9-1995 by which the suit in O.S. No. 23 of 1988 was dismissed for non-prosecution.2. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned orders.3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he could not be present in Court on 18-9-1995 as he was engaged in a religious ceremony and that his Counsel also could not be present when the suit was called on for hearing as he was engaged in Munsiff's Court at Chintamani and as such no representation could be made on that day and hence the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. His absence an...

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project Vs. Dyavappa a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(1)KarLJ504

N.K. Patil, J.1. These two appeals by common appellant are directed against the common judgment and award dated 14th June, 2001 in LAC No. 149 of 1999 and LAC No. 150 of 1999 respectively on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raichur, on the ground that, the amount awarded by Reference Court is excessive.2. Land bearing Sy. No. 63/2, measuring 2 acres 36 guntas (LAC No. 149 of 1999) and Sy. No. 62/1B measuring 3 acres 12 guntas, both situate at Devarbhupur Village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District, along with several lands have been notified and acquired by Government through common appellant herein vide its preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 29th February, 1996 for the purpose of 'formation of Narayanpur Left Canal'. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking all relevant factors into consideration, has passed the award, fixing the market value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre...

The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. S. Rasheed ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ1433; AIR2006Kant158; ILR2006KAR1878; 2006(2)KarLJ473

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Notice to respondent 2 by way of paper publication is held sufficient.2. The load of grapes was being transported in the tempo belonging to the second respondent. On account of the accident, the grape load of the petitioner was damaged. A claim is made under Section 166 seeking compensation. The provisions of Section 166 do not permit a claim before the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of property in transit. The petitioner has to make a claim as per the provisions of the Carriers Act, 1865. The provisions of Section 147 obligates the insurer with liability in respect of the damage to third party property, death or personal injuries to the third party and to the inmates of the vehicle but not respect of the damage to goods in transit. The remedy for the petitioner would be under the Common Carriers Act and before the Civil Court. Hence, the award made against the insurer is set aside.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The amount in deposit t...

M. Basavegowda and ors. Vs. Smt. Shivalingamma and ors.

Court: Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by defendants 1, 3, 4 and 7 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-2-2003 passed by the Court of District Judge, Chlkmagalur, in R.A. No. 1'7/2001 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikmagalur, in O.S. No. 11 /1997 dated 29-6-2001 wherein the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits from the date of suit to the date of delivery of possession.2. The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows :The plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 11/1997 seeking for partition and separate possession of their '4th share in the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits and costs. It is averred that Muddalinge Gowda was the propositus and he has four sons by name Mallegowda (dead), Nin...

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ananda and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ1459; ILR2006KAR2475

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The insurer has taken permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has filed this appeal seeking avoidance of liability on the ground that the cleaner is not covered under the policy and also challenged the quantum. 2. The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 128 of 1999 is a cleaner in a public service bus. He sustained fracture of acromial end of left clavicle and fracture of ulna on the right fore arm. The total body disability to be assessed at 5%. The income of the petitioner to be assessed at Rs. 2,000/-per month. 3. Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for pain and agony, Rs. 10,000/- for medical and incidental expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities and discomfort, Rs. 20,400/- (100 x 12 x 17) for loss of future income on account of disability and Rs. 6,000/- for loss of income during laid up period. In all the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 86,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment as...