Karnataka Court January 2011 Judgments

Vittal Jadav Vs. State by Brahmava Police Station

Court: Karnataka

KESHAVANARAYANA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.6.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, udupi in S.C. No.26/05 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of 5,000/- for the said offence. 2. The appellant was charge sheeted by PW.10-Vijayashankar, the Circle Inspector of Police, Brahmavar Circle, udupi, for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC inter alia alleging that on 7.3.2004 at about 1.30 p.m. the accused suspecting the fidelity of his wife jayashree, assaulted her with iron rod on her head and other parts of the body as a result of which she sustained severe injuries, to which she later succumbed on 24.3.2004 while taking treatment in Wen Lock hospital at Mangalore. 3. According to the prosecution, PW-4. Mahesh, the son of deceased and the accused, on witnessing the incident, rushed to the house of their landlord PW-3...

Gopi Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep by Its Secretary to the Governmen ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order Passed by R3, in Case NO.K.SC/ST/(A)118/04-05 dt.13.6.06, found AT ANN-D and impugned order DT.28.6.07, Passed by the R2. Produced at ANN-E, allow this WP with Costs and grant such other Reliefs.) 1. Writ petition by a legal heir, son of one Chinnappa who had been granted an extent of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.97 of Bukkasagara Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore in terms of a saguvali chit No.LND.178/77-78 dated 3.2.1979 (copy produced as Annexure-C to the petition) and as a person belonging to scheduled caste community with a condition that the land should not be alienated for ever. 2. However, the subject land appears to have been sold by the grantee as per sale deed dated 22.6.1995 in favour of 4th respondent. 3. The 4th respondent in turn appears to have sold the very land in favour of 5th respondent as per further sale transaction dated 2...

Basawanappa Vs. the Karnataka State Information Commission Rep. by Its ...

Court: Karnataka Gulbarga

Reported in: 2011ILR(Kar)1976; 2011(4)KCCR2834(DB); 2012(2)KantLJ237; 2012AIR(NOC)302

DR. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J 1. In the Appeal, the appellant has questioned the correctness of the order dated 10.11.2010 passed in W.P.No.80834/2010 by Learned Single Judge of this Court, rejecting the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant is entitled to file an Appeal under the Right to Information Act (in short, ‘the RTI Act’) to the Appellate Authority viz., the State Chief Information Commissioner. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no provision in the RTI Act, for filing an Appeal against the order made by the State Information Commission (in short, ‘SIC’), but Learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the Writ Petition and holding that under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, Appeal lies to State Chief Information Commissioner. 3. Sri M. Kumar, Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that as against the order passed by the Public Information Officer (in short, ‘SPIO’), there is no provis...

Salman S/O Dr.Syed Javeed Ahmed, Vs. State by Rfo K.Gudi Police, Chama ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Petitioner is one of the five accused parson against whom a case la watered by K.Gudi police, Chamarajanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 2(i)ii), 2(14}, 2(15), 2(16), 2(26), 2(36), 2(39), 9, 19, 27. 31, 39, 39(D), 50. 51, 57 And 24(C) of Wild Life (Protection) Act.2. The prosecution allegation in short is that, this petitioner and other accused shot a deer and on the basis of the voluntary statement said to have been made by accused Nos. 2 to 4, this petitioner arrested and in the course of investigation, it was also found that in a plastic bag, the carcasses of the said animal was found.3. Petitioner's Counsel submits that there is no material except the voluntary statement implicating this petitioner and it is not known as to who had shot at the deer. Secondly, the petitioner m a MBA graduate having permanent root in Mysore and he is living with his father and he is ready to surrender his passport to the trial court and therefore, the petitioner be released on b...

Musthaq Ahamed, S/O Abdul Khader and ors. Vs. the .State by Mulabagal ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard petitioners' counsel and the learned Government Pleader for the State in respect of the petition filed seeking io set aside the order passed by the trial court rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for recalling of P.Ws 1 and 2 for further cross-examination.2. The submission of the petitioners' counsel is that, the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected by the trial court and. Therefore, the said order be set aside and the petitioners be given opportunity to further cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2.3. Having heard to the above effect and on going through the reasons assigned by the trial court at paragraph-10 of its order. I am of the view that this petition hicks merit and the trial court has observed that in the application filed for recalling of P.Ws. 1 and 2. no reasons are given as to why the said witnesses are to be recalled bin. on the other hand, 'he trial court has observed that, recalling of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is to ensure that they go back on their ...

Smt Kamashi and Ors, Vs. Sri K V Basavanagowda and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. There is a delay of 256 days in filing the appeal.2. Before considering the delay application, we have requested the learned counsel for the appellants to address the arguments on merits in order to find out whether any error is committed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.3. The appellants were the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The claim petition was filed claiming compensation on account of the death of one Seena @ Srinivasan, who was a workman under the 1st Respondent. He was a coolie. The Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs.4, 23,480/- taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/ per month.4. The present appeal is filed on the ground the appellants are entitled to claim compensation based on the salary of the deceased to be calculated at Rs.8000/-.5. The order has been passed on 13.7.2009. As on the date of the order and on the date of death of Seena, maximum wages to be considered under the Workme...

P Balakrishnan @ Krishnan. S/O Periasamy Pillal. Vs Intelligence Offic ...

Court: Karnataka

1.The petitioner who is accused no.4 in Spl. Case No.46/05 pending on the tile of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Tumkur. in respect of the offences punishable under section 8(e) r/w Sees.21(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 1985, seeks bail and he is in custody.2 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail are the following: It is contended that the petitioner, though was a Srilankan citizen, since became citizen of India and has been residing in India for several years and also is an income tax assessee. Apart from that, he possesses various properties in India. The documents filed along with the memo go to show that the petitioner is an Indian citizen.3. Second submission made is that, the petitioner has been in custody for almost six years and though the trial date has been fixed, the petitioner's involvement in the case is said to be the voluntary statement made by A-l. Therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to believe commission of aforesaid alleged o...

D.N.Rajaraurthy S/O D.N.Ningappa, Vs. Manju S/O Chandraprasad Tyagi Ma ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard Sri Chethan.B., learned counsel for claimant and Sri K.Suresh, learned counsel for Insurance Company.3. As per medical records and evidence of PW2-Dr.Ramakrishna Bhat, claimant had suffered fracture of shaft of Jeff femur and abrasion of right elbow with lacerated wound on chest. The claimant was treated in Hemavathi Hospital at Hassan. The fracture was reduced by open reduction and internal fixation. At the time of accident, claimant was aged about. 43 years. The claimant is an employee of Central Government. The claimant is working as a senior technician in Prasara Bharathi Station at. Mysore. There is no evidence on record to show that disability suffered by claimant would come in the way of claimant discharging his official duties. The medical expenditure incurred by claimant is reimbursed by the department. The claimant had availed leave with half pay for 55 days. The Tribunal taking into consideration ...

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, Vs. Sri. H Shankarappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal is by the insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the award of the Tribunal both on the ground of liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.4. The brief facts of the case: On 02.01.2007, when the deceased Mohan was proceeding towards Srinivasapura from Mulbagal as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03-ET 2381 near Mudenur tank bund area, the rider of the said bike rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries' at Government Hospital, Mulbagal. Hence, his parents filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore seeking compensation of Rs. 7.00, 000/-. The Tribun...

C.V. Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to the Revenue D ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 22.9.2010 in R.A. No.11/2008-09 at annexure-v issued by the learned deputy commissioner, chamarajanagar, the respondent no.2 herein.) 1. Boundary disputes cannot be subject matter for scrutiny in writ jurisdiction, whether it is in the first round second round or third round. As to whether petitioner has acquired good right and interest in an extent of 4 acres of land claiming title under one Mahadeve Gowda and Shivanne Gowda in terms of sale deed executed on 1.1.2000 purporting to be on the basis of a grant order made in favour of the said Mahadeve Gowda in terms of an order dated 15.6.1978 passed by the Tahsildar, copy produced as Annexure-E to the petition, or as to whether the subject land is any part of an extent of 24 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.247 of the very Shivapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagar Taluk, is not a dispute that can be satisfa...