Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1120; 1999(3)KarLJ5
1. In all there were seventeen accused. They were charged on various counts under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Out of the seventeen accused all were acquitted except A-2 and A-3. A-2 and A-3 each of them were found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months.2. The appellants-accused 2 and 3 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1995 against their conviction and sentence. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 542 of 1995 against A-2 and A-3 for acquitting them for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The State has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1995 against those accused who were acquitted. Allthe appeals were heard together and a common order is passed since all the appeals arise out of the same occurrence that is alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)427; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)621; 1999CriLJ1759
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. In all there were seventeen accused. They were charged on various counts under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 and 302 read with Section 149, IPC. Out of the seventeen accused all were acquitted except A-2 and A-3. A-2 and A-3 each of them were found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo R. I. for six months.2. The appellants-accused Nos. 2 and 3 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 220/1995 against their conviction and sentence. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 542/1995 against A-2 and A-3 for acquitting them for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 324 read with 149, IPC. The State has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 512/1995 against those accused who were acquitted. All the appeals were heard together and a common order is passed since all the appeals arise out of the same occurrence that is alleged to have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR3877; 1999(3)KarLJ28; (1999)IILLJ774Kant
ORDER1. Appellant is employed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) under the respondent-Karnataka State Electricity Board (for short the 'Board'). While working as Junior Engineer, he was placed under suspension on 26-5-1986 on the allegation of certain lapses, acts of omissions and commissions on his part. A regular departmental enquiry was ordered against him. Sri H. Nagappa, Retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as Specially Empowered Authority for holding the enquiry. Enquiry Officer exonerated him of the charges levelled against him. Report of the Enquiry Officer is dated 5-10-1994.2. The matter was placed before the Disciplinary Authority which disagreed with the enquiry report. After recording its reasons for differing with the enquiry report but without issuing notice to the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose the punishment of withholding of one annual increment falling due next without cumulative effect with a severe warning that repetition of the mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(65)ECC42; 1999(111)ELT327(Kar); ILR1999KAR1877; 1999(3)KarLJ439
ORDER1. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these petitions, which were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this order. The questions primarily relate to a true and correct interpretation of Notification No. 64 of 1988, dated 1st of March, 1998 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the eligibility of the petitioners for the grant of exemption from payment of customs duty on the import of medical equipments from outside the country. The correctness of the orders passed by the respondents on the applications made by the petitioners for the grant of exemption certificates and the withdrawal of certificates alreadygranted has been assailed on a variety of grounds. The challenge arises against the following backdrop.-2. People's Union of Civil Liberties in a writ petition filed in public interest before the High Court of Delhi made serious allegations about what it described as a financial scam invol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1487; 1999(3)KarLJ278
ORDER1. Petitioner was an employee of respondent-Chamundi Machine Tools Limited, Mysore ('company' for short). By an order made by Board of Directors of the company, which was communicated vide their letter No.CMT/ADO/1996-97, dated 19-4-1996, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority came to be confirmed, as a result of which the aggrieved employee has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia contending that the dismissal order passed by Disciplinary Authority and confirmed in the appeal by the Board of Directors is vitiated and illegal.2. Facts in brief are:Petitioner had joined the services of respondent-company in the year 1980 as a Technician Trainee. By subsequent orders, petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant Engineer (Supervisor).3. While working as Supervisor in the respondent-company, petitioner was served with a charge-memo dated 16-12-1994, containing charges of misconduct as supervisor of the company. The ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999CriLJ3909
A.M. Farooq, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 3-2-97 in Writ Petition Nos. 29498/95 to 29500/95. The respondents 8 and 9 in the writ petitions are the appellants in these writ appeals.2. The respondents 1 to 3 in these appeals filed writ petitions alleging that the 1st peti-tioner/R-1 is the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Karnataka Bank Limited. The 2nd peti-tioner/R-2 is the Deputy General Manager (Inspection & Vigilance) and the 3rd respondent is the Asst. General Manager, (H. R. & I.R. Department) of the said Bank. The bank in question according to the writ petitioners is a banking company in the private sector and covered by the Companies Act and subject to the regulatory control of the Reserve Bank of India in so far as the banking activities are concerned. That the bank has its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association to regulate its functionary. It includes the power of appointment of personnel to the bank which is conferred o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1999)DMC301; ILR1999KAR2811; 1999(5)KarLJ667
ORDER1. The second respondent is the husband and the petitioner is the wife. The husband filed MC No. 401 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, against the wife, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce, on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The husband sought leave of the Family Court to be represented through a Counsel. Accordingly, the Court permitted the husband to be represented by Counsel from the inception of the case.2. At the time when the divorce petition was filed, the wife was staying at Mumbai, with her parents. The Family Court issued a notice to her to her Mumbai address, calling upon her to appear before the Court on 3-8-1998. By then the wife obtained a job in USA and left the country in July 1998 itself. The notice of the proceedings was served on the wife's father.3. The wife made two applications before the Family Court on 12-11-1998 - IA II under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act'), ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2000)ACC429; 2001ACJ2141
A.J. Sadashiva, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 195 of 1983 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore, have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1988 passed therein awarding damages in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 in respect of their alleged medical negligence.2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the plaintiff Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the court below and respondent No. 4 was the defendant No. 3 joined as such at the application of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 2, the victim of the negligence, died on 25.10.1985 during the pendency of the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to with reference to their rank in the trial court.3. The undisputed facts leading to the judgment and decree under appeal are as follows:The deceased plaintiff No. 2 was the wife of the plaintiff No. 1 and the mother of plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4. She consulted the defendant No. 1 in respect of certain breathing problems and pain in the ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ524
Y. Bhaskar Rao, Actg. C.J.1. These appeals are filed assailing the common order dated 29-7-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the tenants/appellants and allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-Harideesh Rumar.2. The brief facts of the case are that the lands bearing Sy. No. 162/1 measuring 2 acres 11 cents and Sy. No. 176/2 measuring 8 cents situated in Gandhinagar, Marapady Village, Moodabedri, Karkala Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District are shown as Punja lands in the records of rights. According to the appellants, they are Chalgeni Tenants. That the late Sesu Poojary the father of the appellants filed an application under Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The respondent-Harideesh Kumar claimed the land as owner on the basis of a gift deed from his grandfather. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the appellant's father by an order dated 25-4-1981. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR2092; 1999(5)KarLJ370
ORDER1. A litigant today, is not interested in a learned or a ponderous judgment. He is not interested in what Miller said in his Data of Jurisprudence are the 'eligantia juris'. He is only interested whether he has won or lost. Let me tell him the result of this petition, in a few sentences.2. The truth is that every problem admits of only one right solution and it has to be winkled out of shell of irrelevancies. The relevant facts are, while working as an Administrative Manager (Incharge) in the Government Tool Room and Training Centre, hereinafter referred to as GTTC, he was served with a charge memo containing charges of misconduct as Administrative Manager during the period April 1994 to December 1995. The charge-sheeted officer had denied all the charges in the memo. The Enquiry Officer finds him guilty. Based on these findings, the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 30-8-1996, dismisses the petitioner from the services of respondent organization. After filing anunsuccessf...
Tag this Judgment!