Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P. No. 58103/2015 dated 2.3.2016.) 1. These writ appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 2nd of March, 2016 in W.P.No.58103/2015 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant as not maintainable and consequently dismissing five interlocutory applications which were listed before him on that day. 2. The appellant is presently the incumbent Upa-Lokayukta in the State of Karnataka. His case is after a span of over 20 years of law practice, he was appointed as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the year 2006. He was appointed as Upa-Lokayukta in the year 2013 under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short hereinafter referred as the Act ) and he continues to hold the said office since then. 3. It is his further case that a notice of motion signed by 78 members of the Karnataka Legislative ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE26H DAY OF APRIL2016PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT APPEAL Nos.599 600/2016 (GMRES) BETWEEN : Justice Subhash B. Adi, S/o Late Shri Bashetty Adi, Age 64 years, R/at:94. A, 9th Cross, 10th Main, R.M.V.Extension, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-560 080. ...APPELLANT (By Sri B.V.Acharya, Senior Counsel, a/w Sri Ashok B Patil, Adv.) AND :1. 2. The Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 233. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Public Administrative 2 Reforms, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 233. RESPONDENTS (By Sri Madhusudhan R Naik, Advocate General, a/w Sri D.Nagaraj, AGA) . . . . These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P. No.58103/2015 dated 2.3.2016. this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following: These writ appeals coming on for prelimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the communication bearing No.D.O.No.KLAS/Sec/Lok/31/2015-16 dated 03.12.2015 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-'A' and etc.) 1. This case was listed today in the category of orders for dealing with five interlocutory applications, out of which, four have been filed the by the petitioner, and I.A.-4/2016, for impleadment, has been filed by Mr.K.V.Dhananjay, the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. But even before this court could deal with these interlocutory applications, Mr.Madhusudhan R. Naik, the learned Advocate General, has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition itself before this court. Therefore, before dealing with the interlocutory applications, with the consent of the learned counsel for parties, this court proceeds to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the Advocate General. 3. Mr.Madhusudhan R. Naik, the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant29; AIR1951Mys29
Yasudevamurthy, J. 1. The plaintiffs are a registered firm in Mysore manufacturing and selling beedies under the Dame and style of 'Mangalore Ganesh Beedi works.' They have filed a suit against the defendants in the Court of the District Judge of Mysore for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, affixing or otherwise using in connection with their business of beedies any colourable imitation of plaintiffs' registered trade marks and for damages. The defendants have been carrying on similar business in the name of 'Free India Beedi Works' in Bangalore. 2. After filing the suit the plaintiffs applied for a temporary injunction which was granted in their favour ex parte. The defendants subsequently applied for the Betting aside of that order and the learned District Judge, after hearing arguments cancelled hia previous order. He, however, directed the defendants to furnish the accounts of their business once in six months and 'give security to compensate the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant72; AIR1951Mys72
Venkata Ramaiya, J.1. These are applns. filed under Article 226, Constitution of India, for issue of writs of certiorari calling for records & quashing the proceedings in Crim, case Nos. 1 & 2 of 1948. 49 on the file of the Ct. of the Sp. J, Tumhur & writs in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of petnrs. from detention. The two cases referred to arise out of disturbances which occurred on 1-3-1949 in the shandy of Sira, a Town in Tumkur District, from a clash between Hindus & Muscleman's resulting in the death of a Jamedar, grievous hurt to a Police Inspector & injuries to others. It is alleged in the affidavits filed in support of the petns. that charge sheets for offences under Sections 302, 326, etc., I. P. C., were presented on 9-4-1949 in the Ct. of the Sp. First. Clasa Mag, Madhugiri, by the Police against the petnrs. that by a Notn dated 22 4-1949, the Govt. of Mysore constituted the Ct. of the Special J. Tumkur, under Section 2 of the Sp. Criminal Courts Act, 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant106; AIR1951Mys106
Mallappa, J. 1. This is a revn. petn. against the order in C. C. No. 2519 of 50-51 on the file of the City Mag. Bangalore, refusing to furnish the petnr. with a copy of the entries in Col. No. 6 of the charge-sheet placed against him.2. The point has come up before this Ct. for consideration several times, & if it has come up before a Bench for consideration, it is because after the amendment of Section 173, Cr. P. C., the opinions expressed in some unreported cases on this aspect of the matter are not uniform & it is desirable to lay down a definite view on this question which often arises in the criminal Cts. Section 178 lays down that the Police report under that section must be in the form prescribed by the Govt. setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information, the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case & stating whether the accused (if arrested) has been forwarded in custody, or has been released on his bond. Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant10; AIR1952Mys10
Vasudevamurthy, J. 1. The Appellant (accused) has been convicted by the Sessions Judge,. Shimoga Division, in Shimoga Sessions Case No. 4,/ 50-51 under Section 304(2), I.P.C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The charge against him was that he committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death or one Mahomed, a brother-in-law of the accused's brother. P.W. 1 and the deceased are said to have gone to Bhadravati on the night of 1-5-1950 to collect some debts said to be due to them by the accused, and when they demanded the same the accused is said to have got enraged; and consequently there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused when the latter is said to have stabbed the deceased in the back with the Knife M. O. 1 as a result of which Mahomed died very shortly thereafter.2. That the accused was responsible for the knife injury on the deceased and for his death admits of very little doubt. In his statement both before the Committing Court a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1951Kant121; AIR1951Mys121
ORDERMallappa, J.1. This is a revision petition against thejudgment in criminal Appeal No. 233 of 50-51 onthe file of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the City Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 1672/50-51under Section 188, I. P. C. and sentencing the petitioners-accused to undergo simple imprisonment,for 7 days. 2. The case against the petitioners is that the District Magistrate, Bangalore, issued a prohibitory order under Section 144, Cr. P. C., on 3-10-1950 prohibiting the assemblages and processions of more than 6 persons and all demonstrations shouting of slogans etc., for a period of 15 days within the limits of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation, and that the petitioners went in a procession defying the prohibitory order and as such the Police arrested the petitioners and placed a charge sheet for an offence under Section 188, I. P. C.3. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioners and the conviction has been up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1953Kant48; AIR1953Mys48; (1953)31MysLJ90
Mallappa, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decision passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tumkur in R. A. No. 67 of 48-49 setting aside the order in Misc. Case No. 10 of 48-49 on the file of the Munsiff of Tiptur. The appellant-petitioner is a judgment-debtor in Ex. Case No. 217 of 45-46 who filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90 in Misc. Case No. 10 of 48-49 referred to above. It is alleged in the application that the mortgage decree obtained against him was executed at the instance of the respondent as assignee of the original decree-holder. The applicant was not aware of the assignment and was not served with a notice. It is also alleged in the application that the assignee decree-holder has fraudulently got the properties of the applicant-judgment-debtor sold, that he was not served with any sale notice, that there was no proclamation of the sale and that the sale is invalid in law and liable to be set aside. This is particularly so it is contended, as apart from two-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1952Kant85; AIR1952Mys85
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The Petitioner has applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. He has stated in his affidavit that he was arrested by the Police of Davangere, apparently in connection with some criminal case, on 22-1-51 and remanded to Police custody. He was granted bail by the First Class Magistrate who later on cancelled it on the application of the Public Prosecutor. He was then committed and took his trial before the Sessions Judge, Shimoga Division, in Chitaldrug Sessions Case No. 8/50-51. The Sessions Judge released him on bail on 24-2-51, and on 25-2-51 he was rearrested by the Police of Davangere. He was ultimately acquitted in the Sessions case on 8-3-51. He was served on 8-3-51 with a copy of an order of detention dated 5-3-51 together with grounds of detention and, subsequently, on 12-3-51 with the details of grounds for detention.2. The order of detention which ...
Tag this Judgment!