Karnataka Court July 2007 Judgments
Shivappa @ Shivamani S/O. Basappa Soppin, Vs. the State of Karnataka b ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR4222; 2008(3)KarLJ199;
1. This appeal by the accused-1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 148/2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Haveri is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.11.2003 wherein the accused-appellants herein have been convicted for the offences punishable Under Section 498-A, 302 r/w. 34 of IPC., and Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence punishable Under Section 302 r/w. 34 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year. To undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-each, in default to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable Under Section 498-A r/w. 34 IPC, and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC Both the sentences are ordered to run...
Tag this Judgment!Mudukappagouda Alias Madiwalappagouda Vs. R.K. Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR4672; 2007(6)KarLJ185
ORDER1. Alleging violation of the interim order granted by this Court dated 27-7-2006 in Criminal Petition No. 3260 of 2006 the present contempt petition is filed.2. The complainant who was the accused had filed the aforesaid criminal petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash the investigation and proceedings against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 355, 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.3. While considering the case by the order dated 27-7-2006, this Court directed ad-interim order staying the investigation in Crime No. 71 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bijapur. It is the complaint of the complainant that inspite of the interim order granted on 27-7-2006 and the same was received by the respondents by 9-8-2006, inv...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Hosalli Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ319; 2007(5)AIRKarR282
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ petition by a person who had applied to the post of 'Assistant Professor' in Genetics and Plant Breeding, a post notified for being filled up by the respondent 2-University.2. The eligibility criteria for the applicants was the post-graduate degree in the subject with a minimum grading/percentage marks/OGPA of 7.5 out of 10. Petitioner being a person who did not have such minimum OGPA is aggrieved by the prescription of such high eligibility criteria and has approached this Court seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the prescription of such high standard or high eligibility criteria.3. Notice had been issued to the respondents. Respondent 1 is represented by Smt. Sheela Anish, learned Government Advocate and respondent 2 is represented by Sri KG. Nayak, learned Counsel, who has filed statement of objections also.4. I have heard Sri Vijaykumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Sri KG. Nayak, learned Counsel for respondent 2.5...
Tag this Judgment!Havildar N. Bheeman S/O Late Shri K. Nanja Gowder Vs. the Union of Ind ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ331
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person serving as Havildar in the Indian Army who is aggrieved that his case is not considered for promotion to the next promotional post of 'Naib Subedar' though he richly deserves the post.2. Though many grounds are raised and contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner, the crux of the matter is that the petitioner nurses a feeling that his case for promotion to the post of 'Naib Subedar' has not been duly considered, notwithstanding a recommendatory letter or a letter seeking for permission by his Commanding Officer for relaxing the age criteria in terms of the provisions of the Regulation-149 of the Regulations for the Indian Army, Revised Edition, 1987 [for short 'the regulations'].3. This situation is the development in the light of some additional facts sought to be brought before this court through I.A. No. I of 2007 wherein the petitioner has produced a copy of such communication dated 6.7.2006 from the respondent No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!United India Assurance Company Limited Vs. M.N. Ravikumar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1681; AIR2007Kant179; ILR2007KAR3543; 2007(6)KarLJ272
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Substantial question of law:In the event of transfer of vehicle without transfer of RC and insurance policy, whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the workmen of the transferee Under Section 147 of the M.V. Act?2. The R-l and R-2 are the parents of the deceased - Naveen Kumar who was working as a Cleaner in the goods tempo bearing registration No. KA 11 8145. The said vehicle belongs to one Yeshodamma who is the R.C. holder and the policy holder. The claimants say that the vehicle was purchased by one Srinivasa from RC holder without transfer of R.C and the insurance. The said Srinivasa was owner-cum-driver of the tempo at the time of the accident. The deceased was working as cleaner in the tempo at the time of the accident. Srinivasa and Naveen Kumar, both of them died in the accident which occurred on 12.6.2000.2. The third respondent is on record as the L.R of deceased -Srinivasa who was the owner of the vehicle (transferee from the RC holder...
Tag this Judgment!Vilas Murthy Srinivasarao Kulkarni Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ121; 2007(5)AIRKarR421;
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is calling in question the order dated 29-3-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent-Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Bangalore South Taluk. As a question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority after the establishment of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has arisen, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.Notice to respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with at the request of the petitioner as no relief is sought against them.2. By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has set aside the khata entry made in favour of the petitioner in respect of site bearing No. 40 situated at Kammanahalli Village, Earlier, the khata was entered in the name of the petitioner by the Village Panchayat. Aggrieved by the said entry, the 4th respondent herein, had preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 28-11-2006 under the provisions of Section 269(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Khodays Systems Ltd. by Its Managing Director and ors. Vs. Regional Pr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR32]; 2007(6)KarLJ216; (2008)ILLJ329Kant
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. These petitions have been taken up together for disposal as common question of law is involved. In these petitions, petitioners have sought to declare Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 20(1) of the Constitution and to strike down the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act in the matter of levying rate of interest for the delay in payment of contribution being violative of principles of natural justice, discriminate arbitraryand unreasonable and to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 7Q of the Act and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the hardship and to cancel the interest imposed as per Section 7Q of the Act and for such other orders.2. Facts will be referred to in respect of WP 34582/2002. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act having commenced its activi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Basappa Vasantappa Jattepanavar Alleged to Be Siddappa, Adopted Fa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ448
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The defendant in the trial court is the appellant herein and he has come up in this second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1147/1989 by the trial court in favour of the respondents herein, who were the plaintiffs in the said suit, and as the appeal preferred by the appellant herein also came to be dismissed by confirming the trial court's judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 87/1997.2. At the time of admission, the substantial questions of law Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the appellant in the appeal have been treated as the substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal, and they are as under:(1) Whether the courts below are right in assuming that the parties are governed by rules of inheritance laid down under Vyavahar Mayutha and not under Mithakshara Law applicable to Bombay School especially Bombay Karnataka?(2) Having regard to the admitted facts that the parties are residents of Dharawad District namel...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Syed Ahmad Pasha S/O Syed Yakhub Sab Vs. the Director, Karnataka G ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR492; 2008(2)KarLJ734; 2008(1)KCCRSN3; 2008(2)KarR83; 2008LabIC1342(Kar)(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-H order dated 19,9.2006 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 8976/2002. As per Annexure-H order, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant for automatic grant of special promotion to senior scale of pay under the Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic grant of special promotion to senior scale of pay) Rules, 1991. The Tribunal found that even though the petitioner had completed 15 years of continuous service without any promotion in the cadre of First Division Assistants on 5.2.1993, he was not granted the benefit of automatic grant of special promotion to senior scale, for the reason that there were adverse remarks in his Confidential Reports for the previous five years from 1988-89 to 1992-93. The Tribunal also found that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit as he did not have satisfactory record of service.2. It is not disputed that for the year 1988-89 the Confidential Report of the...
Tag this Judgment!Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Com ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas296(Kar); (2008)2CompLJ72(Karn); [2010]97SCL51(Kar)
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition Under Section 391 to 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking the sanction for scheme of arrangement, Annexure-D.2. The petitioner company was incorporated as Astra IDL Ltd., on 11.07.1979 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 in the State of Karnataka, Subsequently with effect from 31.05.2001 the name was changed to Astra Zeneca Pharma India Limited and the registered office of the petitioner is situated at 'Avishkar' off Bellary road, Hebbal, Bangalore-24. The authorised share capital of the petitioner is Rs. 5 crores divided into Rs. 2,50,00,000/- equity shares of Rs. 2/-. The issued, subscribed and paid up share capital is Rs. 5 crores. The main object of the petitioner company was to manufacture, produce, formulate, prepare, buy, market, distribute, exchange, supply, self or otherwise and generally to deal in pharmaceutical and other kinds of chemicals and their intermediaries which is set out in the Memorandum...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »