Karnataka Court February 2011 Judgments

Nippon Sheet Glass Co. Ltd. Vs. Raman Fibre Sciences Private Limited

Court: Karnataka

(This Crl.P. filed U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dt.8.6.2010 and quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.26218/2010 (PCR No.19685) pending on the file of the VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore City for the offence P/U/S.500 of the IPC.) Comparative advertisements have become the order of the day in today’s business world due to fierce competitive market. A trader takes out advertisement stating that his product is superior to another’s product. Whether such advertisement can be characterized as defamatory in nature so as to attract section 500 of IPC. This is the question that has cropped up for consideration in this matter following the trail court directing issuance of summons to the petitioner after taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 500 of the IPC. 2. The backdrop for the aforementioned order of the trail court in short are the following facts: The petitioner, said to be reputed company incorporated in Japan engaged in the business of sale...

Abdul Nazir Maudany Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.483/2008 of Madivala P.S., Bangalore City, which is Bangalore City, which is registered for the offences p/u/s 120 (b), 121, 121(a), 302, 307, 326, 435 and 201 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 4 of prevention of damage of public property 1984 and Sections 3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.) 1. The petitioner who is accused No.31 in Cr.No.483/08 (C.C.No.23444/08) is one of the 32 accused persons against whom a case is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A,302,307,326,435 and 201 of IPC, Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property, 1984 and Sections 3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and he is before this Court seeking b...

Smt Harsha, W/O Sri Chandrakanth SharmA. Vs. State of Karnataka by Hen ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard both sides in respect of bail sought by the petitioner who is involved in the commission of the offence punishable under section 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in short is that the petitioner, her husband and her son invited the deceased landlord to the house and when she came to the house at around 4.00 p.m. all the three accused committed the murder of the deceased by smothering and stabbing the deceased and thereafter the dead body was transported in a car.3. Submission of petitioner's counsel is that. this petitioner who happens to be a woman and is in there is no material to indicate the involvement of custody and moreover, even if prima facie case is there, yet the consideration to be taken note of for grant of bail are, the chances of tampering with the evidence and likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and therefore, relying on the Apex Court ruling in this regard reported in 1984 SCC (Crl) 63 and also referring to the report of the FSL ...

Muniyappa @ Driver Muniyappa, S/O PillappA. Vs. the State of Kamataka, ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard both sides in respect of the bail sought by the petitioner, who is said to have committed the murder of deceased Kondaiah.2. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint lodged by the wife of the deceased, in short, is that, on the night: of the incident, the deceased and the petitioner, both being drunk, were quarrelling with each other and the accused-petitioner asked the deceased to hand over the silver CUD which contained drink to him and the deceased refused to do so and this led to the accused assaulting the deceased with a sharp stone on his head and forehead and on account of the injuries sustained, Kondaiah died. 3. The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that there was no material to show the involvement of this petitioner and if at all there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, as both of them were drunk, the deceased might have sustained injuries for some other reason and not on account; of any act on the part of the petitioner.4. On the ot...

Mrs Kavitha Mahesh. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner.

Court: Karnataka

1. MISC.CVL.3231/2011 filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC r/w Sections 87 and 93 of R.P. Act, 1951. is for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to produce as many as seven documents which are appended to the application and affidavit and which are forming part of the application and affidavit running from page Nos.8 to 20.2. In the affidavit of the petitioner it is mentioned that having regard to the prayer made in the Election Petition and as the petitioner had to prove her case, who had sought for the commensurate documents/information from the Returning Officer. 151. K.R. Pura Assembly Constituency, being not successful in her effort, was compelled to approach the authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005; that it has some bearing about the manner in which the petitioner has secured the copies of 14 CDs which have already been produced before this Court and that the present documents sought to be produced are very material and relevant for the...

Sri Abdul Kareera Ladsab Telgi, S/O Late Ladsab Telgi. Vs. the Chief S ...

Court: Karnataka

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Court. Mumbai, in CBI Spl. Case Nos.l 11/2004 & 1 12/2004 and Sessions Case No.550/2006. vide Annexure-A.2. Annexure A is the production warrant issued by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay in the cases mentioned above. The Registrar of the City Sessions Court, Mumbai, has marked a copy of the production warrant to the Liaison Officer, Bombay Central Prison, Bombay, for compliance with a direction that the accused - Abdul Kareem Ladsab Teigi, presently undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison. Bangalore, was required in the court at Mumbai in the three sessions which are kept for judgment., for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 255, 256. 258, 259. 260, 465. 466, 467. 468. 471, 472, 420. 109. 217. 218, 221 of IPC and 63 of Bombay Stamps Act. 1958. his is further stated in Annexure-A that Video Conferencing facility could not be established with Bangalore Cent...

Sri Narayana M.. S/O Ramakondaiah. Vs. Smt.ChinnammA. W/O M.NarayanA.

Court: Karnataka

1. Order dated 28.10.2010 issuing arrest warrant by the court below in C.Misc.413/2010, is challenged in this writ petition.2. The proceedings before the court below are initiated by the wife of the petitioner for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount awarded in her favour at the rate of Rs.2.000/- per month. When the petitioner did not deposit the amount, the arrest warrant is issued.3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.01.2011 petitioner through his Counsel filed an application seeking advancement of the case and also tiled one more application praying to recall the order issuing arrest warrant. However, the court below without considering the application filed for recalling the warrant issued, has ordered for re-issue of arrest warrant.4. learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was willing to pay certain amount in partial satisfaction of the order of maintenance granted. However, the court below without even considering the application filed for...

Lakshmegowda Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary Revenue Departmen ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(2)KCCR150(SN); 2011(5)KantLJ335

(This Petition is field under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for relevant records and quash the impugned order No.LNDCR-290/2006-07 dtd 14.11.08 passed by the R4 as per Annexure-V as illegal and void and etc.)All the sundry grievances cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction, irrespective of the fact that such grievances are brought to high court in writ jurisdiction via Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or ADLR or JDLR or any other revenue authorities.2. While what can be examined in writ jurisdiction is as to whether a public or statutory authority having a corresponding administrative duty or statutory duty has confined to the statutory provisions while so functioning or if has failed to perform the duty to the detriment of a citizen resulting in the denial of right of the citizen and such situation while can be made subject matter of a writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus, as the case may be, the present writ petition does not involv...

The Asst. Commissioner or Commercial Taxes, Bangalore and Others Vs. M ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.10882/2008 (T-RES) dated 31.01.2009. This STRP filed under Section 65(1) of KVAT Act, Against the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2009 passed in STA.No.263/2007 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, allowing the appeal filed under Section 72(1) of KVAT Act 2003.) 1. All these appeals are preferred by the State, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9689/2006 and other connected matters, wherein the provisions of sub-Section(1) of Section 72 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) were declared unconstitutional. 2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Writ Petition. 3. All the petitioners are registered dealers under the Act. Section 35 of the Act read with Rule 38 prescribes that ev...

Sri Pushparaj. S/O P.RaghavA. Vs. State by Udupi Town Police.

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard petitioner's counsel and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings have been initiated before the trial court in C.C.No. 2452/2001 against the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 191. 192, 193. 194. 195 and 211 of the I.P.C. and the said proceeding is based or. the F.I.R. that was registered against the petitioner following the F.I.R. given by P.S.I. Swarna of Udupi Police Station and the allegations, in short, are that, on 9 4.2010. the petitioner herein picked up A-2 and told her that she would be paid Rs. 1,000/- and she has to accompany him for immoral act and accordingly, the petitioner picked the girl in question i.e., A-2, and kept her in room No. 414 for the purpose of allowing her to indulge in immoral activities.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire complaint is motivated and false one and this petitioner was on duty on the sai...