Karnataka Court September 2011 Judgments

M.B. Rajasekhar Vs. Savithramma

Court: Karnataka

(This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the adv. For appellant praying to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dtd.10.8.06 passed by XVI ACMM, Bangalore City in C.C.No.5857/05-acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.) The appellant has challenged the order acquitting the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ for short) on a trial held by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The appellant herein submitted a complaint before the Trial Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent the accused before the Trial Court and it is alleged that they were known to each other and for domestic requirements, the respondent (the accused) made a request to the appellant (the complainant) in the month of September 2004 to give a hand lo...

Smt. A.G. Subhadramma Vs. the Managing Director/Chairman, Hindustan Ae ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KCCR422; 2011ILR(Kar)5691

(This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement issued by the respondents at Annexure-L dated 26.02.2010 and direct the respondents to pay withheld HRA to the petitioner from 24.04.1992 till the date of payment with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.) The petitioner, working as a Senior Sister, in the Medical Unit of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore Complex (for short ‘the Management’), has again knocked the doors of this Court, in the matter of payment of withheld House Rent Allowance (HRA), having been repeatedly rebuffed by the Management. 2. The facts of the case not in dispute are the following: (a) The Management offered appointment to the petitioner for a post of ‘Staff Nurse’. The petitioner reported for duty on 24.07.1985 and was allotted rent-free staff quarter on 08.08.1985. The Standing Orders of the Company, contain the Rules and Regulations governing Pay, HRA, CCA etc., to its ...

Kantharaju and Others Vs. State by Halebeedu Police, Hassan District

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2012(1)KCCR105

1. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the fact that the petitioners were enlarged on bail when the case was under investigation for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. When the charge sheet was filed for offence under Section 307 of IPC in the same crime number, this Court has been insisting on a fresh bail application. This Court has already held that once bail is granted in a case, the lower Court shall not cancel the bail and the bail granted earlier will have the effect until it is cancelled by a Superior Court or for violation of any conditions imposed by the Court. Though the petitioners had erroneously filed application for anticipatory bail that cannot be made as a ground for cancelling the bail granted earlier to the petitioners. It is held that the petitioners are entitled to enjoy the benefits of bail order passed earlier and they cannot be taken into custody in Crime No. 06/2010 unless for any other reasons their bail is canc...

Smt. C. Vidya Murthy Vs. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

(This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 20.2.2009, (Annexure-K) issued by the respondent Corporation after declaring the same as irregular, unlawful, arbitrary, malafide, capricious, discriminatory and void-ab-initio as being opposed to the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act/Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 and as being violative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 42 of the Constitution of India) 1. In response to an application dated 07.12.2006 and the interview by the Selection Committee held on 07.07.2007, the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, offered appointment to the petitioner for the post of Manager (Finance), purely on contract basis, for a period of three years, in the scale of pay of Rs.7500-250-12000/-, with a basic pay of Rs.7,500/- and fringe benefits/allowances, stipulating the terms and conditions of appointment. Petitioner accepted the offer of appointment and joined duty in the respondent-Co...

N.V. Ranganatha Rao Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and ...

Court: Karnataka

1. As the petitioner is now aged 76 years and as he has been agitating his right for the allotment of the alternative site on losing his revenue property on account of its compulsory acquisition in 1969, I allow I.A. No. 1 of 2011 for early hearing. The case is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the learned advocates. 2. The petitioner has called into question the endorsement, dated 20.6.2009 (Annexure-L) turning down the petitioner’s request for the allotment of an alternative site. The petitioner has also prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents to allot an alternative site. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner had purchased a revenue site carved out of the lands at Sy. Nos. 12/5 and 14/6 of Tavarekere Village, Bangalore South Taluk from one Sri Shivaraman in the year 1969. On the compulsory acquisition of the said lands, the petitioner and the similarly placed erstwhile revenue site owners challenged the acquisition proceed...

Ferrostaal A. G. Vs. Bharati Shipyard Limited and State Bank of India

Court: Karnataka

1. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 14.1,2011 passed in AA.Nos.6/2010 7/2010 by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannda, Mangalore. 2, The facts in brief are as under:- Appellant is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany and was formerly known as MAN Ferrostaai AG. It has its Principal Office at Hohenzoiiernstrabe, Germany. The appellant is engaged in project development, project management, etc., in particular, it is acting as a General Contractor and is responsible for construction of special-purpose ships at shipyards. 3. Respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No.302, Wakefield House, Sprott Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, having its Branch Office and Shipyard at Thaneer Bhavi, Mangalore. Respondent No.1 is a privately operated shipyard and is engaged in the business of construction of vessels. Respondent No.2 is State Bank of India, having its industrial finance Branch at World Trade C...

U. Sadananda Udupa Vs. Smt T. Kusuma Shedthi

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: CRP filed u/sec.115 of CPC, filed against the order dated: 8.8.2011 passed on IA No.1 in Ex.Case No.14/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura, dismissing the IA No.1 filled under order 21 rule 29 r/w sec.151 of CPC.) 1. Revision u/s.115 of CPC is directed against the order on I.A.No.1 dated 08.08.2011 in Ex.Case No.14/2011 to stay further proceeding in execution of the decree dated 14.03.2006 and modified award dated 21.02.2009 in O.S.No.96/2003. 2. Petition is listed for admission after notice to the contesting respondent who has entered appearance and is represented by learned counsel Sri.A.Anand Shetty. 3. Heard Sri.S.P.Shankar, Senior designated counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.A.Anand Shetty for the respondent. 4. From what learned counsel have adverted to and on perusal of the records, it is manifest the respondent Kusuma Shedthi filed execution to execute the decree dated 14.03.2006 in O.S.No.96/2003 as modified subsequently by order dat...

Lokesh So Late Koteswara Modaliar. Vs. the State Rep. by Inspector of ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was tried and convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Therefore, he has filed this appeal. 2. We have heard Sri P.K.Ponnappa learned counsel for accused and Sri N.S.Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for State. We have been taken through the evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief; the ease of prosecution and inter se relationship of some of the prosecution witnesses is as follows: - PWI Lalitha is (he mother of accused-Lokesh and the deceased Santhosh. PW2-Sheela is the daughter of PWI and younger sister of the accused and deceased. PW3-Nataraj is the lather of PWl. During Ganesha Festival. PW2-Sheeia had come to the house of PW 1. The inmates of the house were PW 1, PW2. the accused and the deceased. The house is situate at No.6, IICross, Pipeline. Cholurpalya. Magadi Road, Bangalore-23. PWI, the deceased, accused and PW3 (lather of PWI) were staying in I-floor of the house. The ground door was in occupatio...

Ewac Alloys Limited, Mumbai, Rep. by Its Head of Finance and Accounts ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declaration that the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Standards of Weights and Measures (Package Commodities) Rules 1977, are not applicable to the subject goods so far as petitioner is concerned and etc.,) 1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking declaration that provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ and the Rules framed thereunder are not applicable to the subject goods in so far as petitioner is concerned and for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notices and to strike down the definition of ‘industrial consumer’ and ‘institutional consumer’ in Rule 2-A of the aforesaid Rules as being contrary to the scheme of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and inconsistent with other provisions of the Rules. 2. The first ...

Manager-legal Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore and ...

Court: Karnataka

(MFA No.8515/2009 is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated: 18.06.2009 passed in MVC No.520/2007 (Old No.6642007) on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Addl. MACT, Davanagere, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,92,800/- with future interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of payment) There two appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 18.6.2009 in MVC.No.250/2007 on the file of Addl. MACT, Davanagere. The Appeal in MFA.No.8515/2009 is filed by 3rd respondent before Tribunal challenging its liability to pay compensation awarded to claimant on the ground that policy issued by insurance company is a trade policy under Rule 41 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. As such, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to claimant, who was traveling in a new vehicle, which was being shifted from one place to another, wherein he was traveling along with his cocoon, which is not permissible. So far as MFA.No.6496/20009 is concerned, it...