Karnataka Court December 2007 Judgments
Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnaiah @ Krishna S/O Late Rangaiah Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR888; 2008(3)KarLJ400; 2008(1)KCCR495; 2008(2)AIRKarR394; 2008CriLJNOC801
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is by the accused challenging the order of the Fast Track Court No. IV, Bangalore City, passed in S.C. No. 699/05 order dated 26.9.06 in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and default sentence of six months S.I. for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and for the offence under Section 306 of IPC to undergo S.I. for a period of five year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default sentence of six months S.I.2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Pushpalatha was given in marriage to accused No. 1/appellant about six years, prior to the incident; after the marriage both. husband and wife have started residing at Matadahalli in a rented house; the appellant was vending vegetables; out of the wedlock they begot two children; subsequently, deceased Pushpalatha came to know that her hu...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. V. Aruna D/O Ramanjulu Naidu Vs. Smt. Gowramma D/O Moopooraiah Se ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR923; 2008(4)KarLJ149; 2008(1)KCCR393; 2008AIRKarR50; AIR2008NOC1148; 2008(4)CivilLJ172; 2008AIHC1635(Kar)
A.C. Kabbin, J.1. This appeal preferred by the 1st defendant in O.S. 1403/1985 on the file of the 1st Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, relates to alleged sale of a property by the second defendant - House Building Co-operative Society Limited in favour of two persons.2. The suit property is site No. 14 situated in Sy. No. 9 of Gerahalli village in Bangalore North Taluk measuring east to west 30 + 36/2 and north to south 40 feet, in all measuring 1320 sq. ft. or 122.62 sq. meters. The plaintiff (the first respondent) claims to have purchased the said site from the second defendant (the second respondent) Manjunatha House Building Co-operative Society Limited by a registered sale deed dated 23-08-1978. She claims that a few days prior to the date of the suit, i.e., on 20-04-1985, when she visited the site, she found that the first defendant (the appellant), had trespassed over the suit property and had unauthorisedly constructed a small house of about two squares in area on the western...
Tag this Judgment!Sri K. Venkataramaiah and ors. Vs. Sri Katterao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR474; 2008(4)KarLJ587; 2008(1)KCCR354; 2008(2)AIRKarR284; 2008CriLJ1547; 2008(2)AICLR844
Subhash B. Adi, J.1. A private complaint No. 21/2005 under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.2. Complaint alleges that, he received a letter dated 20-10-2003 duly signed by the accused making derogatory and defamatory statement against him. The complainant alleges that he is not well-versed with the English language and the said letter was given to one Mallikarjuna Hanumanthappa to read the same, who read the letter and alleged that the defamatory statement are made against him and alleges that, despite of issuing a legal notice, the accused did not respond. Complainant also alleges that the allegations are defamatory in nature. Based on the said complaint and affidavit filed in support of it, along with other materials, the learned Magistrate directed registration of the complaint and further ordered for issue of summons.3. The proceedings on the file of the learned Magistrate are called i...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. P.S. Aithala Vs. Mr. Ganapathy N. Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC646; 2008CriLJ1545; ILR2008KAR440; 2008(4)KarLJ245; ILR2008(1)Kar440; 2008(4)KLJ245; 2008(1)KCCR112; 2008(2)AIRKarR282; AIR2008NOC1295; 2008(3)CivilLJ491; 2008CriLJ1545; 2008(3)Crimes55; 2008(2)AICLR841; 2008(3)ICC720
H.V.G. Ramesh, J. 1. These appeals have been taken up together for disposal since they ire arising out of common judgment passed by the XXII Addl. C.M.M., & XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore city in C.C. Nos. 1842/03 to 18429/03 by order dated 21-12-05.2. The appellant had filed four separate cases against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of cheques issued by the respondent drawn on Canara Bank, Mahalakshmi Layout Branch, Bangalore. According to the complainant, he issued a legal notice dated 12-8-03 by RPAD as well as under Certificate of Posting on 13-8-03 and despite service there is non-compliance by the respondent to pay the amount, as such, the complaint came to be filed. Along with the complaint, an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act R/w Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act was also filed for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the complaint. The learned Magistrate, after ...
Tag this Judgment!Latha K. Nair W/O Krishnan Kutty Nair Vs. Gold Mohar Foods and Feeds L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC571; 2008CriLJ1542; ILR2008KAR1883; 2008(3)KarLJ451
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order of dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 762/2004 dated 21.2.2005 passed by the F.T.C. No. VI, confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the 16th Addl. CMM, Bangalore City in CC. No. 34870/2001 dated 12.8.2004 and reversing the findings.2. The case of the respondent/complainant is that he is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various types of animal feeds and the petitioner/accused who is in the business of sale of animal feeds periodically purchased the animal feeds on credit basis from the respondent/complainant. The petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No. 104893 dated 17.4.2001 for a sum of Rs. 1,80,395-21 ps., drawn on Indian Bank, Bharanikkavu, towards the amount due for supply of feeds on credit basis and when the said cheque was presented by the complainant through their banker State Bank of India, Byatarayanapura, Mysore Road Branch, Bangalore, for realisation on 18....
Tag this Judgment!Sri K. Venkataramaiah, Vs. Sri Katterao S/O Shamrao Deshapande
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1547
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. A private complaint No. 21/2005 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 500 & 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.2. Complainant alleges that, he received a letter dated 20.10.2003 duly signed by the accused making derogatory and defamatory statement against Mm. The complainant alleges that he is not well-versed with the English language and the said letter was given to one Mallikarjuna Hanumanthappa to road the same, who read the letter and alleged that the defamatory statement are made against hint and alleges that, despite of issuing a legal notice, the accused did not respond. Complainant also alleges that the allegations are defamatory in nature. Based on the said complaint and affidavit filed in support of it following with other materials, the learned Magistrate directed registration of the complaint and further ordered for issue of summons.3. The proceedings on the file of the learned Magistrate are called in questi...
Tag this Judgment!Gokaldas Exports Ltd. Rep. by Its Executive Director, Rajendra J. Hind ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Kant65; ILR2008KAR3286; 2008(4)KCCRSN323; 2008(2)AIRKarR491; AIR2008Kar65; 2008AIHC(NOC)693(Kar)
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, a manufacturer/garment exporter when allotted export entitlements under New Investors Entitlement, Non-quota Transfer, Bast Performance Transfer, quota in country category US-3410. US/342, US/2GR, EU/8, EU/27, CA/2GR during the year 1998, in terms of the Government Export entitlement policy 1996-1998 for short 'Policy', exported 84.37% of the entitlement, resulting in the 3rd respondent Apparel Export Promotion Council (for short 'AEPC), Bangalore, forfeiting Rs. 36,10,378/- by order dated 17-12-1999 Annexurc-'C', confirmed in First Appeal by order dated 12-02-2002 Annexure-'D' of the First Appellate Authority and dismissal of the Second Appeal by order dated 14-09-2002 Annexure-'E' of the Second Appellate Committee. Hence, this writ petition.2. Petition is opposed by filing Statement of objections dated 7-1-2003 of the 3rd respondent and Statement of objections dated 1-6-2004 of Respondents 1 and 2. In the Statement of objections of Responden...
Tag this Judgment!Bpl Limited Vs. Workmen of Bpl Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR447; 2008(1)KCCRSN7; 2008(2)AIRKarR255
ORDERH.N. Nagmohan Das, J.1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 4-1-2007 in Ref. No. 39/ 2006 passed by the Labour Court at Bangalore directing reinstatement of 15 workmen of the respondent-Union with continuity of service, consequential benefits and 50% backwages.2. Petitioner is a unit of BPL Limited. The petitioner's unit was engaged in manufacture of plastic injection mould and plastic components. There were 66 employees working in the petitioner's unit. On 23-1-2001 the petitioner introduced voluntary retirement scheme. Out of 66 employees 12 staff and 22 operators have accepted the voluntary retirement scheme. Further 6 executives and 11 staff have resigned from the job. 15 workmen of the respondent union did not accept the voluntary retirement scheme. Thereafter the petitioner terminated the service of 15 workmen by issuing notice on 2-4-2001 on the ground that they have transferred the undertaking of t...
Tag this Judgment!Q-soft System and Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. Sri H.N. Giridhar S/O H.G. Sh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC381; ILR2008KAR643; 2008(4)KarLJ240; ILR2008(1)Kar643; 2008(4)KLJ240; 2008(1)KCCR75; 2008(2)AIRKarR287; AIR2008NOC1294; 2008CriLJNOC550; 2008(4)CivilLJ72; 2008(3)AICLR213; 2008(3)ICC619
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the 16th Addl. CMM., Bangalore, dated 1.10.07.2. Heard the Counsel for the appellant3. The case of the appellant is that the respondent being the Software Engineer has issued a cheque for Rs. 2 lakhs in favour of the appellant pursuant to the agreement entered into between him and the appellant to serve the appellant/company for a period of two years and that after his appointment he had also been imparted training at the cost of the Management; subsequently, after having worked for three months, respondent left the service of the company and thereby caused loss to the appellant. As such, complaint came to be filed by the appellant stating that by virtue of the agreement when the cheque had been issued it becomes enforceable debt. As against it, the trial Court, after enquiry, dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is a contract between the parties and there is a breach of contract and although, the c...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Vijayashree Sabarad Nee Patil W/O Dr. Basavaraj Sabarad Vs. Gulbar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ196; 2008(2)KCCR764; 2008(2)AIRKarR342; 2008LabIC(NOC)557(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is an aspirant for the post of lecturer in Kannada, advertised for being filled up by the first respondent - Gulbarga University - in terms of the notification dated 23-6-2001 [Annexure-N] and who in fact is not selected, but the fourth respondent in this writ petition having been selected, quite naturally, being disappointed, feeling aggrieved, has come up with this writ petition, questioning the legality of the selection of the fourth respondent contending, inter alia, that the procedure adopted by the selection committee for selecting the most suitable candidate or more meritorious candidate is not a fair or proper procedure; that the method of awarding marks as adopted by the selection committee based on external factors also, vitiates the selection; that the selection committee has not made a proper selection on applying an objective criterion and a uniform method; that the selection of fourth respondent is an act which should be characte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »