Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR4538; 2001(5)KarLJ601
The Court1. These two appeals arise from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22-3-1997 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Special Case No. 23 of 1988. Cri. A. No. 258 of 1997 is filed challenging the conviction of the appellants for the contravention of Clause 9 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensing Order'), which is punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the EC Act') and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each with default clause. Cri. A. No. 455 of 1997 is filed by the State challenging the correction of acquittal of the accused/respondents of Clause 10 of the Licensing Order and praying to enhance the sentence.2. Since the appreciation of evidence and the point to be considered in both the appeals are common, these appeals are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment.3. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant498; ILR2001KAR4369; 2001(6)KarLJ127
ORDERThe Court 1. These cases had come up for hearing on 27-7-2001. On that day, neither the Counsel for the petitioners nor the petitioners was present. In view of important subject-matter involved in these petitions and as larger implication to the profession of the Advocates is involved, this Court felt to take the assistance from one of the Counsels from Bar. Accordingly, among the Counsels who were present in the Court, Mr. Keshava Bhat was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and at his request, the matter was adjourned to 3-8-2001, On that day, at the request of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the matter was adjourned to 6-8-2001 with a direction to the Government Pleader to get the stage of O.S. No. 2413 of 1984 pending on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The petitioners assailing the impugned order passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ1646Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner challenged in this writ petition the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, dated March 15, 2001 passed in I.D. No. 24/1999 as per Annexure-F where under the Tribunal has held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the respondent is not fair and proper solely on the ground that the management has not paid subsistence allowances for the period from January 7, 1999 to April 14, 1999.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:The respondent herein who was an employee of the petitioner was suspended in respect of certain charges for striking work and commission of act subversive to the discipline. He was served with charge sheet on November 30, 1998 accusing him of going on illegal strike without giving valid notice from November 23, 1998. As the respondent/workman was on strike, it was made clear in the said charge sheet/suspension order that he was placed under suspension and since he continues to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR565; 2001(6)KarLJ575
ORDERThe Court 1. The plaintiff is the owner of the shop premises which is in the occupation of the defendant as a tenant. The rent of the premises is Rs. 870.00 per month. As the provisions of the K.R.C. Act are not attracted to the shop in question in view of Section 31 of the said Act the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 30-10-1998 terminating the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the leased shop premises and the defendant was called upon to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the shop premises on the expiry of 30-11-1998. The said legal notice was duly served on the defendant. The defendant admitted the tenancy, the rate of rent. However, he set up a plea of fresh lease for a further period of 15 years and therefore contended that he is not liable to vacate the shop premises. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit O.S. No. 9619 of 1998 on the file of the 14th Additional City Civil Judge Court, Bangalore, for his ejectment and also for an enq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]108CompCas744(Kar); ILR2002KAR1292
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st defendant arrayed as 1st respondent in this petition who had remained ex parte had been dispensed with the issuance of notice in this revision. 2. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, by the 2nd defendant in the suit is directed against the order and decree dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Court of Small Causes, (SCCH 17) Bangalore in Small Cause Suit No. 3560/ 1998 on its file.3. The Trial Court in the said suit though decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiff which had been filed against two defendants namely, one Siddar Murthy arrayed as defendant 1 and the State Bank of Saurashtra arrayed as 2nd defendant, the said suit was decreed only as against the 2nd defendant and dismissed as against the 1st defendant. It is aggrieved by this order and decree in decreeing the suit only as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant is in revision before thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(1)KarLJ250
ORDERThe Court 1. Petitioner, an employee of the first respondent-Cauvery Grameena Bank ('Bank' for short), a body constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, is before this Court, inter alia questioning the legality or otherwise of the orders dated 30-7-1993 passed by the Board of Directors of the Bank in confirming the orders dated 26-3-1993 made by the disciplinary authority of the Bank, in imposing a penalty of dismissal from the services of the Bank.2. The facts in extenso requires to be noticed. They are as follows:The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent-Bank as a Probationary Officer on .11-7-1977 and his services were confirmed in that post with effect from 11-1-1979.3. At this stage, I should refer to the service profile of one Sri K. Vijayappa, who was appointed as an enquiry officer by the disciplinary authority to inquire into the allegations made against the petitioner. Petitioner and Sri K. Vijayappa, joined the services of the Bank on the same da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2002)ACC557; II(2002)ACC510; 2002ACJ557
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. M.F.A. No. 5566 of 1999, M.F.A. No. 690 of 2000 and Cross-objection No. 23 of 2000 arise out of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madhugiri in M.V.C. No. 177 of 1997 dated 23.10.1999.2. M.F.A. No. 3557 of 1998 arises out of and is directed against the judgment and award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, in M.V.C. No. 140 of 1994 dated 29.5.1998. The essential facts of the case necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:Facts Re: M.V.C. No. 177 of 19973. The parties would be referred to with reference to their rank before the Tribunal. M.V.C. No. 177 of 1997 was filed by Suma, the daughter of Mariyappa, aged 4 years, minor represented by her natural guardian father seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 towards the personal injury suffered by her in a motor accident that occurred on 13.1.1997. It is averred in the petition that on 13.1.1997 at about 9 a.m. claimant was standing by the side of K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2002)ACC24; 2003ACJ558; ILR2002KAR915; 2002(3)KarLJ93
H.N. Narayan, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 2. The claimants are the parents of the deceased-Girish Nayaka. He was aged about 17 years when he died in a motor accident which occurred on 6th August, 1994. The facts which, are undisputed are these: The deceased-Girish Nayaka, aged about 17 years was just then admitted to first year mechanical engineering diploma in the Polytechnic Institute of Chickmagalur, which is evidenced by Ex. P. 7, the certificate issued by the Principal. He passed his S.S.L.C. in first class vide Ex. P. 6-Marks Card. While he was riding a bicycle on 6th August, 1994, at about 12.30 p.m. on the left side of the road near Kadur, a maxi-cab bearing No. KA-02/5552 driven by the first respondent, which was in the ownership of second respondent, insured with respondent 3, came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed against the bicycle, as a result, the cyclist, Girish Nayaka sustained multiple injuries to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1676; ILR2002KAR1205; 2002(2)KarLJ425
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. challenging the initiation of proceedings in Special Case No. 101 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, as well as quashing the entire proceedings.2. The brief facts necessary for consideration are as follows:The petitioner 1 is the proprietor of Monsoon Agro Centre, Periyapatna, dealing in seeds. The petitioner 2 is the distributor of Akshaya Agro Sales Limited, who has supplied the seeds to the first petitioner. The petitioner 3 is the Managing Director of Kaveri Seeds Company(Private) Limited, Secundarabad, which company procures the seeds and distributes for sale through various distributors like petitioner 2.3. On an inspection held on 31-8-1998 by the complainant Seeds Inspector of the shop of petitioner 1, suspecting that certain seeds were sub-standard, the same were seized by the complainant. After following the due procedure as prescribed under the Seeds Act...
Tag this Judgment!