Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-22-2006
Reported in : 2007(1)AIRKarR65; 2007CriLJNOC129(DB).
1. Six persons were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 324 read with Section 149 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and the learned Sessions Judge, Bijapur, acquitted four of them and convicted two accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. The State aggrieved by the said order of acquittal of four accused and conviction of two persons for lesser offence under Section 324 of IPC has preferred these two appeals, and hence these two appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:Complainant Guralingappa, (PW-1) was residing in Ambedakar Galli of Bagalkot along with his mother (PW-6), deceased elder brother Ramesh, sister Kummakka and sister-in-law Suvarna (PW-9) and about four years prior to the complaint it was decided to take one Padavva the sister of accused Nos. 1 to 4, in marriage to deceased Ramesh. After the engagement was over Rs. 30,000/- was given to the accused family as they ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-22-2006
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Appeal by the disappointed plaintiffs in OS No. 23 of 1992, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Gokak, whose suit for compensation by way of damages for the death of their breadwinner - the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff, for a sum of Rs 3.00 lakh with interest etc., came to be dismissed under the impugned judgment and decree dated 16-2-2000 rendered in the said suit.2. The appeal is filed contending that the trial court has non-suited the plaintiffs without applying the relevant law and in a proper manner; that while the material placed on behalf of the plaintiffs has not been properly considered or evaluated by the learned trial judge, the version of the defendants has been accepted without any justification; that the finding recorded in the suit is contrary to the material on record and the evidence placed before the court by the plaintiffs; that the delay in approaching the court for seeking damages as against the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-05-2006
Reported in : ILR2009KAR1062
ORDERJawad Rahim, J.1. The owner - insured and insurer of Matador Van bearing registration No. KA-04 2473 are in appeal against the judgment and award in MVC 19/2002 dated 17-02-2003 awarding to the first respondent in M.F.A. No. 6622 of 2003 compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,15,150/- towards physical permanent disability suffered by him as a result of injuries in the road traffic accident.2. The claimant, who in First Respondent in MFA No. 6622/2003 is also in appeal in MFA No. 6631/2004. As common questions of fact and law arise, the appeals are clubbed and heard together at the stage of admission itself as requested by both sides.3. As MFA 6622/2003 is a joint appeal by the insured and the insurer, though the insurer was not impleaded or granted permission to contest the claim on all grounds postulated under Clause (a) and (b) of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, (In short 'the Act'), a question regarding its maintainability is a moot question that has arisen for consideration. We ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-08-2006
Reported in : ILR2007KAR1127; 2007(6)KarLJ531
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a Miscellaneous Second Appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court which has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court without going into the merits, but only on the ground that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 requires to be considered and then remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are:(1) Whether the appeal preferred by the appellant is maintainable?(2) Whether the Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court solely on the ground that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed?(3) Whether the Appellate Court was justified in remanding the matter and ordering for re-trial?3. The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-24-2006
Reported in : II(2006)DMC844; ILR2006KAR3097
R. Gururajan, J. 1. Sri. Victor Sebastian is before us aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 11.8.2005 passed in MC No. 24/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Udupi in this appeal.2. The appellant-husband married respondent on 8.5.1996 at U.B.M. Jublee Church, Udupi as per the customary rights of Protestant Christians. Parties are related to each other. The respondent is a daughter of appellant's mother's younger sister. Parties were knowing each other from their childhood and at the time of marriage, the appellant was working at Dubai. After marriage, at the respondent's instance, the newly married couple had rented a house and they were staying together at Udupi. After four months of the marriage, the respondent had vacated the rented house and gone to her parents house, taking away an advance deposit amount paid by the appellant to the landlord in the. matter. She did not join her husband. The respondent in the light of the amendment to the Indian Divorce Act 2001 fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-29-2006
Reported in : AIR2007Kant59; ILR2007(1)KarSN10:2007(1)KCCRSN19:2007(1)AIRKarR267
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This Regular First Appeal by the first defendant is against Judgment and decree dated 16-2-2001, passed in OS No. 2066 of 1984, on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction.2. The first defendant being purchaser of certain machinery from the plaintiff and the second defendant being the bank which had issued a guarantee in favour of the first defendant purchaser for a sum of Rs 1.75 lakh showing payment of the amount to the first defendant on demand.3. The suit of the plaintiff having been decreed by the trial court the present appeal by the aggrieved first defendant purchaser of the machinery from the plaintiff.4. The case of the plaintiff in brief before the trial court was that the plaintiff and the first defendant had entered into an agreement for supply and commissioning of certain specialized machinery known as wire drawing machine to be commissioned at the premises of the first defendant; that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-29-2006
Reported in : AIR2006Kant252
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, party-in-person, questioning the legality or otherwise of the notice dated 26th September 2005 bearing No. D.C.E.19/2005 on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure C, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, he has sought for a direction, directing the respondents not to conduct disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner on the allegations made by respondent No. 4 in his complaint dated 23rd August 2003 vide Annexure D and to order payment of costs and damages by respondents in view of unnecessary harassment and damage caused to the reputation of the petitioner and pass any order including the sanctioning of costs of the writ petition, considered appropriate by this Court.2. The brief facts of the case of petitioner, party-in-person in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 4 herein gave a complaint against the petitioner, party-in-person on 23rd August 2003 to the State Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-08-2006
Reported in : II(2007)ACC905; 2007ACJ536; 2007(4)KarLJ224
1. Since a common question of law is involved in all these appeals, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order. At the outset, we intend to notice that these appeals are posted before us in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15.7.2004. The learned Single Judge, while referring the matter for consideration and decision of this Court has stated, that, since an important question of law is involved in these appeals, the matter requires to be considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court.2. The appellant in these appeals is common. The respondents are different. The appellant is an Insurance Company. The respondents are the wife and children of one late Sri Mookappa in WC. No. 471/99, injured Sri. Mallikarjuna in WC.No. 343/99, Sri. Hanumanthappa in WC.No. 344/99, Sri Siddaiah in WC.No. 345/99 and Sri. Sanna Appaiah in WC.No. 346/99.3. The brief facts are:The date of accident was 5.2.1999. The vehicle that was invo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-18-2006
1. These two criminal appeals are directed against the same Judgment and Order of the trial Court dated 25.3.2003 and hence they are conveniently dealt with/heard together and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment2. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the trial Court has convicted the Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 504, 506, 302, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. It has further convicted the Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. The above said accused persons have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various terms including the life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC. The Accused No. 1 has been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act All the sentences imposed against the accused are directed to run concurrently. They are also held to be entitled to the ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-10-2006
Reported in : 2006(1)KarLJ448
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The first petitioner is the Trade Union and the second petitioner is its President. They have filed this writ petition for a writ of quo warranto declaring that the appointment and continuation of the third respondent as Managing Director of the second respondent-Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board is illegal and for grant of consequential reliefs.2. The first respondent-State Government appointed the third respondent as the Managing Director of the Board with effect from 31-1-1998 as per the Notification at Annexure-D. On the date of such appointment, third respondent was working as Chief Engineer of the second respondent-Board. Therefore, the petitioners herein preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 44001 of 1995, dated 12-4-2002 (Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ILR 2002 Kar. 2435) challenging the aforesaid appointment. The main ground of attack was, the said appoint...
Tag this Judgment!