Karnataka Court March 2011 Judgments
Sri.Gange Gowda S/O.Chunchaiah. Vs. State of KarnatakA. by Nagamangala ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 27.08.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court (Sessions) Judge - IV, Mapdya in S.C. No. 132/2000 convicting the appellant, for the offences punishable tinder Sections 436 and 506 IPC and sentencing him. to undergo S.L for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s.436 IPC with default, clause and further sentencing him to undergo S.L tor a period of 1 year for the offence u/s.506 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.01.1998. at about 11.00 p.m., within the limits of Nagamangala Police Station, the accused along with two others with a previous ill will against the complainant Puttegowda, and with common intention have set fire to the shed of the complainant in which he had stored agricultural implements, 15 bags of Onions, 500 coconuts and wooden articles, thereby, they have caused damage of Rs. 10,000/- to CW.1. and hence, they are alleged to have committed offence under Section...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Asst. Administrator Of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
(Prayer: This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the WC Act, against the judgment and award dated 17.03.2005 passed in case No.WCA:B-4:NFC:CR-50/2003 on the file of Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bangalore Sub-Division – 4. Bangalore, awarding compensation of Rs.1,74,703/- with interest at 12% and directing the appellant herein to deposit the same.) 1. The second respondent – Insurance company in C.R. No.49/2003 and 50/2003 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bangalore has come up in these appeals challenging the common order dated 17.03.2005, passed in the aforesaid two claim petitions. 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as under: The claimants Ramamurthy in C.R. 49/2003 and Nagaraju in C.R.50/2003 contend that they were working as loader and unloaders in tractor trailor bearing No.KA-05-T-2887-2888, belonging to first respondent and insured with second respondent, before the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Hubli Electricity Supply Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to quash re-assessment notice dated 14.02.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent produced at annexure-F to this writ petition and etc.) 1. Writ petitions by M/s. Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited [HESCOM], questioning the legality of the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short ‘the Act’], determining the tax liability of the assessee for the periods from April 2005 to March 2007 and from April 2007 to March 2010 [Annexures –L and L1 to the writ petitions] in a sum of Rs.94,95,880/- and mulcting penalty of Rs.10,23,777/-. 2. Petitioner though has remedy of appeal in terms of section 62 of the Act, has nevertheless, chosen to by pass the statutory remedy and jump into the High court seeking the following reliefs: i) “Issue a writ of certiorari quashing re-assessment Notice N...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Hindustan Coca-colA.Vs. ShivappA. S/O Sri BalappA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. At the behest of the respondent, the Government of Karnataka, by an order dated 28.8.2007. made a reference to the Labour Court at Bangalore, for adjudication of the terms of reference shown therein. The reference was questioned by the petitioner/management in W.P. No. 16314/2007 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 7.11.2008. reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions before the Labour Court. Notice of the reference sent by the Labour Court was not served on the petitioner/management but was served on the Security Guard. The petitioner/management having not been notified of the receipt of the notice did not appear and contest the reference. Considering the evidence placed on record by the respondent/ workman the labour Court passed an award dated 24.7.2009 holding that, the management was not justified in refusing work to the workman from 20th May 2001.2. The petitioner filed MA 6/2009 to recall the award dated 24.7.2009 and to permit the applicant to pros...
Tag this Judgment!J.K.Ram Prakash. S/O Sri.P.J.Krishna Murthy, and ors. Vs. Gayathri N. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act') in Crl.Misc.No. 1390/10 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.2. There is no dispute that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the first petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 29.4.2007. On account of certain matrimonial differences, the respondent herein initiated petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955 in M.C.No. 837/09 on the file of the Family Court at Bangalore. In the said petition, the first petitioner appeared and filed his objection wherein he appears to have conceded to the prayer made by the respondent herein. However, when the said mattes was still pending, the respondent herein filed petition under Section 12 of the Act against the petitioners herein. The second petitioner is...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. C.H.M.J.B. D Souza, S/O. Peter D
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Misc.W.7952/20.10 is filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 2349 days in filing the recalling application in Misc.W.7953/2010 to recall the order dated 23.2.2004. 2. The applicants have explained the delay in filing the recalling application, in the affidavit accompanying the application stating that, their father has filed the writ appeal, he was not informed about the conditional order passed by this Court on 23.2.2004 and he was under the impression that the matter is pending before this Court and unfortunately, no steps were taken to serve respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and he died on 24.1.2010. Recently, the applicants came to Bangalore to inquire about the matter and then only, they came to know that, the matter was dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 23.4.2004. Immediately, they engaged the services of counsel and filed an application for recalling the order dated 23.2,2004 along with an application for condonation of delay. Further, they submitted that, the...
Tag this Judgment!A R Chandra Shekar S/O A.Ramappas. Vs. State of Karnataka by Honnalli ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. In this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. the petitioner is seeking to quash the investigation by the Honnali police in Davangere district in Crime No 22 of 2011.2. Petitioner, admittedly, is running a fair-price depot at Sasuvehalli-i, Kulgatte Village, Honnali Taluk. On certain complaints received by the Deputy Commissioner about the misappropriation of food grains and other articles issued to this fair-price depot for distribution to cardholders, the Deputy Commissioner of the district directed the Tahsildar to hold a preliminary inquiry and to submit a report. Pending inquiry, the licence issued to the petitioner for limning the fair-price depot was also kept under suspension. The Tahsildar, after going through the records maintained by the petitioner and other materials. prima facie, found several violations and acts of criminal breach and misappropriation etc., by the petitioner herein and in that regard he submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner. In the light of th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Deepa W/O Raman. Vs. Smt Dorty W/O Late Andrews.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. In this petition filed under Section 397 CrPC. the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the concurrent judgment of the courts below, whereby she has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short. the Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5.50 lakh.2. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner, inter alia, contending that the accused-petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh from her in the month of August. 2007 for the purpose of construction and for other persona), needs and for discharge of said loan amount, the accused-petitioner issued the cheque in question and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned with a banker's endorsement 'fund insufficient' and in spite of service of notice, the accused-petitioner has failed to pay the amount covered under the cheque.3. The accused-petitioner, on service of summons, appeared before the trial court and ...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Girish, S/O Thaniyappa, and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. MFA No.8602/2008 is filed by the appellant Insurance Company and MFA No.9586/2008 is filed by the claimant -injured challenging the judgment and award dated 24/5/2008 passed in MVC No. 1737/2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge. Member. MACT-III. Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.2. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.5.28,624/- with interest at 6% per annum, on Rs.5.13.624/ from the date of petition till realisation.3. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal committed error in not noticing that the accident occurred almost on the middle of the road and the rider of the motor cycle had plenty of space towards his left side. Me has failed to avoid the accident. Under these circumstances, finding on issue No. 1 with regard to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry is erroneous. The decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Minn B.Mehta & Another V/s Balakrishna Ramachandra N...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Gopalakrishna Textile Mills Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/S.Gopalakrishna Textile ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The applicant in ESI Application No.36/2005 on the file of ESI Court, Bangalore has come up in this appeal challenging the order dated 19.9.2006 wherein the application tiled by the applicant under Section 75 of the ESI Act challenging the order dated 31.3.2005 passed under Section 45 A of the ESI Act is rejected and the order impugned therein is continued.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are: On 19.2.2009 and 22 2.2009 one Vasudeva Rao, an Inspector of ESI Corporation visited appellant's establishment. On verification of records for the period April 1996 to March 199S he found that appellant has not paid the contribution with regard to services utilized from Penguine Security Agency. Accordingly he prepared observation letters as per Exs.R1 and R2 which are produced and marked by ESI Corporation before ESI Court. Based on the said letters entire proceedings leading to this appeal has commenced. In the observation letters the inspector of corporation made the following observat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »