Karnataka Court June 2006 Judgments

T. Diwakara S/O Rangappa, Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Spp

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4813; ILR2006KAR4632

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Nos. 1 to 9 committed a gang rape of PW10 on 20.9.2003 at 12 noon. Accused No. 10 after the incident, in the night, said to have threatened PW10 with dire consequences if she were to give police complaint. The complaint is lodged two months after the incident, Apart from the evidence of PW10 there is no other corroborative evidence to prove the allegation of rape. The counsel for the accused filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for production of the certified copy of the charge sheet and the depositions in S.C. No. 85/2005. In the said case the accused are the witnesses. The complainants are persons belonging to lingayath community. PW10 also belongs to lingayath community. It is a case of a group clash and a case and a counter booked against both the groups. It is argued that on account of vengeance, vindictively a false complaint is given through PW10 against the accused persons. The statement of PW10 was...

Prakash K. Srivastava and anr. Vs. the Tehsildar and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shanthanagoudar, J.1. The order at Annexure-X dated 26.10.2005 passed by the Tahsildar Bangalore North Taluk, the 1st respondent herein is assailed in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent has ordered to revert the land to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas and 0.13 guntas respectively, situated in SyNo. 49/1 and 49/2 of Hebbalu village of Bangalore North Taluk to the legal representatives of original grantees, and ordered to restore katha in the joint names of the legal heirs of original grantees namely, Krishnappa S/o Late Chikkaiah, Munihanumappa S/o Late Chikkamuniswamy, Thimmaraju S/o. Late Thimmarayappa, Venkatamma W/o Late Ramaiah and Hanumakka W/o Late Kempaiah, on the ground that the said land has been alienated in contravention of Section 5(3) of the' Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short).2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:One Chikkamuniyappa was the Inamdar of the la...

Keygien Global Limited by Its Merchandising Manager Ms. Manju Jacob Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)BC355; 2006CriLJ3413; 2006(5)KarLJ307

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The complainant supplied certain quantity of readymade garments to the respondent - accused. The accused towards the value of the garments supplied, issued cheque - Ex.P3. The cheque on presentation is dishonoured Statutory notice is issued and private complaint is filed. Per contra, the accused submits that the goods delivered were defective and not up to the standards agreed. Therefore, the entire bulk has been rejected and returned to the complainant. The accused states that in view of the rejection of the bulk, the accused does not incur any liability to honour the cheque. The Trial Court upheld the defence contention and acquitted the accused.2. It is admitted that cheque was issued in respect of supply of readymade garments. On delivery, it is found that goods were defective and not according to specifications. Hence, the accused rejected and returned the goods. It is admitted that accused has not appropriated the goods supplied by the complainant. If the re...

Sri. H. Nanjundappa S/O. Late Hanumaiah (Since Deceased by His Legal R ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2008)BC564; ILR2007KAR2706; 2007(6)KarLJ609; 2008(2)KLT851

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent-accused had issued a cheque Ex.P.1 for Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the discharge of debt liability in favour of the complainant. Ex.P.1 on presentation was dishonourd. Statutory notice is issued and a private complaint filed.2. Per contra, the accused denies existence of any debt liability. It is submitted that the accused had handed over a signed blank cheque to his wife which was given to the daughter of the accused and from whom the cheque is taken by the complainant and after fabrication, a false complaint is filed. The accused has produced an endorsement issued by his banker marked at Ex.D.10 to show that the cheque in the first instance was presented on 3.6.1998 and it was dishonoured on the ground 'account closed by the drawer'. The complainant re-presented the cheque on 25.6.1998 through Syndicate Bank for collection, the cheque is dishonoured again on the ground that 'account closed'.3. The Counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh relying on the decision of Supr...

Parashuram S/O Yallappa, Vs. State Through Chouthai, Special Public Pr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3738; ILR2006KAR2813; 2006(6)KarLJ310

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order dated 22.05.2006 passed by the Fast Track Court I, Koppal, in Sessions Case No. 76/2004 dismissing the application filed by the accused-revision petitioners herein Under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the Sessions Court (Fast Track Court) at Koppal, did not have jurisdiction to try the case.2. The Gangavathi police chargesheeted the revision petitioners for the offence punishable Under Sections 302, 201, 504, 506, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that accused No. 1 being the husband of deceased Shivaleela, the daughter of the complainant had deserted his wife, whereupon she was residing in her parental house at Mujawar Camp, Gangavathi. Later on accused No. 1 took a second wife who was none other than the daughter of accused No. 2. Accused No. l entertained an apprehension that his first wife Shivaleela may file a petition for maintenance and even seek rights in the immovabl...

The Police Inspector Vs. C.V. Sheelavanth, Drug Inspector

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR2426; 2007(4)KarLJ640

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. The State has filed this revision petition under Section 397(1) r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the correctness and legality of the finding in discharging the respondent accused by the III Addl. District Judge and Special Judge at Mysore in Spl. Case No. 90/1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Assailing the order of discharge passed by the special Judge, the state has come up with this revision mainly on the ground, that the finding recorded by the Special Judge holding that the sanction order i.e., Ex-P.25 is not valid and incorrect and totally wrong. So also, the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court for coming to that conclusion are quite illegal, erroneous and against the Mandatory provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So, after framing the charge the prosecution adduced the evidence to substantiate the said ...

Manas Electric Company, Rep. by Sri B. Surendra Shiyal Proprietor Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR1466; (2007)8VST223(Karn); 2007(3)KCCRSN191

ORDERGopala Gowda, J.1. The Appellant is a proprietary concern and Registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short) has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22300/2005 disposed of on 09.12.2005, in which proceedings, he had questioned the order of reassessment dated 18.08.2005 passed regarding escaped turnover sales tax by respondent No. 3 in exercise of his power under Section 12-A(1) of the Act, as he was appointed by the 1st respondent in exercise of his power under Section 3-A(1) of the Act, urging various legal contentions.2. The brief facts and the rival contentions are adverted to in this order for the purpose of appreciating the same to find out whether the order impugned in this writ appeal warrants interference and the order of re-assessment made by the 3rd respondent requires to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its Appellate jurisdict...

Reebok India Company (a Company Registered Under the Companies Act) Re ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3961; 2007(34)PTC164(Karn)

B.S. Patil, J.1. The controversy involved in this appeal pertains to the use of the trade slogan 'I AM WHAT I AM'. The Appellants herein are aggrieved by the grant of temporary injunction restraining them from using the Logo 'I AM WHAT I AM' along with their trade mark.2. The Appellants herein are defendants in the suit, O.S.No. 16861/2005 filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against them restraining them from using on their products the logo/trade slogan 'I AM WHAT I AM' and for payment of damages in a sum of Rs. 15,000/-and for rendition of accounts.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the trade slogan 'I AM WHAT I AM' is its distinctive style and design atleast since 1998, used on its Garments which is alleged to have been stolen/pirated by the defendants, thus infringing their proprietary rights including intellectual property. The Plaintiff further asserted that they were the first to use the logo 'I AM WHAT I AM' and therefore the plaintiff alone can ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Kar)353; [2006]286ITR203(KAR); [2006]286ITR203(Karn)

ORDERR. Gururajan. J 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Branch (for short 'the Tribunal') has chosen to refer the following questions of law for our consideration Under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act:1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of 'Corporate Guarantee Obligation' amounting to Rs. 18,67,21,730/- does not come within the purview of 'prima facie adjustment' as laid down Under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act 2. The assessee is a company. The assessment year involved is 1994.-95. While processing the return of income Under Section 143(1)(a), the Assessing Officer found from the return and the accompanying documents that a sum of Rs. 18,67,21,730/- representing 'Corporate Guarantee Obligation' had not been debited to the profit and loss account. It was claimed as a revenue deduction in the statement of consolidation of return of inco...

Kirloskar Power Supply Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Business Head Vikram V. J ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)5VST395(Karn)

ORDERR. Gururajan J.1. Appellant is before this Court praying to set aside the order dtd 25-2-2002 passed by the Addl., Commr., of Commercial Taxes.2. Appellant is engaged in the activity of generation of electrical energy for sale and is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act. The appellant company commenced its activity of generation of electrical energy to be sold to its sister concern, M/S Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., and to other parties in the State of Karnataka through banking and wheeling of energy generate with the Karnataka Power Transmission corporation ltd., The Government issued a licence to M/S Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., in the matter of generation of power. Agreements were entered into and thereafter the appellant started generation of power using high speed diesel and since 1997, it has been using furnace oil as a raw material for the said activity. The furnace oil was initially procured from M/S Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd,...