Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-18-2005
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2687; ILR2005KAR2282
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This appeal is by the accused assailing the Judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC in S.C. No. 47/2000 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, dated 28-2-2003 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000-00, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months.2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as under:The accused Dilawarsab, s/o Alisab was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C on the allegation that on 26-9-1999 at about 12.00 noon, committed rape on his cousin sister P.W. 13 in the land of PW 1-Dadesab at Teggihal village. The prosecutorP.W. 13 is the daughter of P.W. 1-Dadesab and he is residing in his lands at Teggihal village along with his wife-Bibijan, sons viz., P.W. 3-Husseinsab, Hazarathsab and Moulasab. The brother of P.W.1-Aslisab was also residing nearby with his wife and son-Dilawarsab (accused). On the said date and time, while P.W....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-06-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)KarLJ233
..... .further, the supreme court in the case of ambalal purshottam v. ahmedabad municipal corporation and ors. air 1908 sc 1223 : (1968) 2 scj 692, has held as hereunder:(11) the last argument raised by counsel for the appellants is, in our judgment, futile. the notification issued by the government of bombay under section 6 of the land acquisition act was by operation of sub-section (3) conclusive evidence that the land was needed for a public purpose. no inquiry was thereafter permissible that the land was not needed for a ..... learned government advocate (similar to the contention of sri g.s. visweswara raised on behalf of the appellants) to the effect that the society had not submitted a scheme/project for scrutiny before the three men committee or the state level co-ordination committee constituted under rule 3 of the karnataka land acquisition (companies) rules, 1973 or that there was no clearance of the single window agency (swa), is not acceptable to us inasmuch as the entire ..... society and it had indulged in the business of real estate activities; that it was admitting ineligible and bogus members and the acquisition proceedings is a colourable exercise of power. sri g.s. visweswara also referred to the observations made by the learned single judge in the order impugned in these writ appeals whereunder the learned single judge has held that irrespective of the quashing of the earlier acquisition proceedings relating to a total extent of 52 acres 17 guntas, possession of the lands .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-21-2005
Reported in : II(2007)ACC699; 2007ACJ368; 2007(6)KarLJ493
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This Court in M.F.A. Nos. 1622 to 1625 of 1997 declared that the liability of the insurer is only limited to Rs. 20,000 per passenger, since the policy is issued under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The balance of compensation is directed to be payable by the insured. The insured has filed the above review petitions.2. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is replaced by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into effect from 1.7.1989. The provisions of Section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 correspond to provisions of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. The Counsel for the insurer resisted the review petition on the ground that the points urged in the review regarding scope and legal effect of Section 147(2) was not urged in the course of appeal. Therefore, not entitled to re-argue the appeal under the guise of review.4. The Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal : AIR1999SC623 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya : ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-25-2005
Reported in : I(2006)BC471; [2005]128CompCas1025(Kar); ILR2005KAR2960; (2008)11VST723(Karn)
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the prescribed authority could refuse to issue for failure to pay the arrears of tax due the declaration Form. No. 40 to a sick industrial company under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter called the Entry Tax Act) and the Rules framed thereunder having regard to the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short the 1985 Act). The learned single judge dismissed writ petition No. 43142 of 2003 and declined to issue a mandamus to the fourth respondent to issue Form No. 40 to the appellant under the Entry Tax Act.2. Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act provides for the levy and collection of tax on entry of goods specified in the first schedule into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein at such rates not exceeding 5 per cent of the value of the goods. This tax is payable by e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-30-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD(Cri)44; III(2006)BC143; 2005CriLJ3700; ILR2005KAR3648; 2006(2)KarLJ570
ORDERB. Padmaraj, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred to this Bench for decision by an order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice:1. Where for a considerable period the accused cannot be apprehended, despite efforts by Court, whether case against him may be separated in terms of Rule 2 of chapter IV of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice?2. Whether substituted service is permissible in a criminal case?3. Whether an accused can be proceeded exparte and a decision may be given exparte regarding his guilt or otherwise of the matter?2. The above reference to this Bench arises this way:A Complaint Petition came to be filed by the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the 12 accused persons alleging the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial Court. The accused No. 1 in that case is the company and the accused Nos.2 to 10 are the Directors of the said company who are alleged to be the persons incharge of the day to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-15-2005
Reported in : ILR2006KAR632; 2006(1)KarLJ518
H.L. Dattu, J.1. These appeals arise from Writ Petition No. 16077/2005 and Writ Petition No. 16351/2005 filed by Sri R. Ranganath and Sri L. Sathyanarayana respectively. Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition Sri. Ramegowda was the contesting respondent. By a judgment dated 22.7.2005, the Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and has quashed the Government Order bearing No. 182. MNV. 2005, Bangalore, dated 13.6.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent in the writ petitions has filed these appeals.2. The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is the fourth respondent in the writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for short). Recruitment to the various posts in the services of the Corporation is regulated by the Rules called 'The City of Bangalore Municipal Corporations Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971'. The Rules contain schedule of various posts in the services of the Corporation. The highest post provided in the schedul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-13-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR2659
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.,1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the plaintiffs. They are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gokak in O.S. 26 of 1992, wherein the suit for possession has been dismissed.2. Few facts that are necessary to appreciate the controversy in question are:The suit property is an agricultural land situate in Kudachi village bearing Sl.No. 161/4B ad measuring 4 acres 26 guntas, which, according to the plaintiffs is valued at Rs. 1,80,000/-. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners of the land in question. The suit property was brought to sale in a revenue Court auction and one late Smt. Ajamatbi purchased the same. After her death the property devolved on her heirs who are the plaintiffs. According to them, even before the plaintiffs or could establish their possession in respect of the suit land pursuant to an auction sale, the defendant had filed a suit in O.S. No. 323/68 for declara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-25-2005
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2676; ILR2005KAR2232; 2005(4)KarLJ404
A.C. Kabbin, J.1. The main point for consideration in this appeal preferred by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent for offences of rape and criminal intimidation, is to what extent inconsistencies in depositions of prosecution witnesses, and doubts entertained by the Trial Judge in view of such inconsistencies or any lapse in investigation would affect the acceptability of that evidence.2. The prosecution of the respondent was preceded by the following events. On the evening of 6-3-92, the complainant (PW1) look his daughter (referred to as PW2) aged about 6 years, to the Government Hospital, Kadur, alleging rape on her by the accused/ respondent. (In this judgment names of the witnesses are omitted to avoid identity of the victim and they are referred to as prosecution witnesses). The girl (PW2) had pain in her private parts and her labia majora was swollen. That had been first noticed by PW2's aunt (PW 4) on the evening of that day when PW 2 had complained to her. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-26-2005
Reported in : I(2006)BC281; ILR2005KAR2911; 2006(3)KarLJ141
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by both the Courts below in the suit filed by the appellant in OS 220/1998 and in RA 47/1999 by orders dated 30.7.1999 and 7.9.2000 respectively.2. The appellant had filed a money suit for recovery against the respondent before the Trail Court based on the pro-note. According to the appellant/plaintiff, defendant/respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 28.6.1996 and Rs. 20,000/- on 10.10.1996 from the plaintiff by executing on demand promissory notes. He had agreed to pay interest at rate of 24% p.a. The defendant had paid only Rs. 5,000/- on 28.7.1998 and failed to pay the remaining amount. A suit was filed for recovery of the money and the same was contested by the defendant by denying the same. The Trial Court has raised as many as six issues casting the burden on the plaintiff to prove that whether the defendant had borrowed the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-27-2005
Reported in : I(2006)ACC548; ILR2005KAR5317; 2005(6)KarLJ341
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12th September 2005 passed in W.R No. 20795 of 2005. The respondents 2,3 and 4 are the existing operators on the routes covering Davanagere, Channagiri and Bhadravathi sectors. The appellants made applications for grant of stage carriage permits before the first respondents, Regional Transport Authority (for short, 'the RTA') between the routes Davanagere and Bhadravathi. The RTA, Davanagere, granted two permits in favour of the first appellant, between Bhadravathi and Davanagere and back in Sub. No. SCP/ 220/03 - 04 and 221/03 - 04 dated 27.7.2004 (results announced on 10.10.2004). Similarly, the RTA granted a stage carriage permit to the second appellant for the route Davanagere to Bhadravathi and back by its order dated 17.2.2005 in sub No. SCP/141/04 - 05. Thereafterwards, the RTA sanctioned a timetable in favour of the appellants 1 and 2 for their services. The timings assigned to the...
Tag this Judgment!