Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3440; ILR2004KAR3058; 2004(7)KarLJ298
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J. 1. This appeal is by the CBI, Bangalore, assailing the judgment of acquittal of the accused in CC No. 131/1990 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore City, dated 20.3.1998, acquitting the accused ground for want of proper sanction to prosecute the accused under Section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.2. The accused Sri C.S. Krishnamurthy, Technical Supervisor, Bangalore Telephones, Bangalore, was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, alleging that during the period from 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 he acquired assets which were disproportionate to his known source of income and as on 27.6.1986 he was in possession of movables and immovable assets worth Rs. 4,01,454.58 Ps. which were disproportionate to his known source of income and he did not give satisfactory account. The CBI, Bangalore City, after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet. The learned Special Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR909; 2004(5)KarLJ128
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is an elected member of the third respondent-Grama Panchayat. He was also elected as Adhyaksha of Grama Panchayat on 17-12-2002. The requisite number of members of the Grama Panchayat have moved a No-confidence against the petitioner. The second respondent-Assistant Commissioner issued a notice dated 5-5-2004 as per Annexure-A, informing the petitioner that the meeting of Panchayat will be convened on 22-5-2004 at 11.00 a.m. at the Grama Panchayat Office to consider the said No-confidence motion. On 22-5-2004 at 11.00 a.m., it was noticed that two locks were put to the door of Panchayat and about 400 men and women had assembled in front of Grama Panchayat Office protesting against the No-confidence motion. One person by name Elias consumed poison. In spite of the efforts made by the Assistant Commissioner for a period of one hour, he could not conduct the meeting and therefore he postponed the meeting. On 24-5-2004 as per Annexure-B issued an endorsem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2097; 2004(4)WLC347
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Vide order dt. 2.3.2000, notice for final hearing was issued. Notice of the stay application was also issued. Thereafter vide order dt. 29.3.2000, after service of the respondent, the matter was ordered to be listed for final hearing on 10.4.2000. On 10.4.2000, again the matter was ordered to be listed for hearing on 18.4.2000, then arguments were heard, and vide judgment dt. 28.4.2000, the writ petition was allowed. Against that order, a D.B. Special Appeal, being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 442/2000, was filed, and vide judgment dt. 13.4.2001, the same was allowed, on the short ground, that in a absence of appearance of appellant (present respondent No. 4), at best, the writ petition ought to have been admitted, and fresh notice ought to have been issued. It was also noticed, that though Vakalatnama is said to have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it could not be placed on record, for certain reasons, which were also noticed, and therefore, the order passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2004Kant476; ILR2004KAR3599; 2004(6)KarLJ267
R. Gururajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 46/1990 on the file of the additional Civil Judge, Shimoga. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff-respondent filed a plaint and it was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of defendants 3, and 4 were the children of Chotima W/o. Buden Sab Chotima died on 30.12.1986. Abdul Samad S/o. Chotima predeceased his mother. He died on 7.4.1985 in an accident. He left behind defendants 3 and 4 and their children. Defendants 3 and 4 are the two wives of deceased Abdul Samad. They claim compensation and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded to the defendants 3 and 4. According to the plaint averments, defendants 3 and 4 have no right, title or interest in the properties left by the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff's husband has contributed a lot to Smt. Chotima and given cash amount also for purchasing the Municipal site in her name....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(6)KarLJ307
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner, had been elected as Upadhyaksha of Bankanal Grama Panchayat, Sirsi Taluk, U.K. District. It appears the requisite number of members of the Panchayat gave notice to the Assistant Commissioner proposing to move the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner in turn notified all the members a meeting scheduled for the said purpose, which was fixed on 21-2-2004 and to the misfortune of the petitioner the motion was carried as six members out of eight members, who constituted the Panchayat voted in support of the no-confidence motion. It is thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court, feeling aggrieved about the manner in which the no-confidence proceedings were conducted against him.2. Sri Hadimani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Commissioner has not followed the requisite procedure as contemplated under Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(5)KarLJ135
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners are organisations in the nature of Associations. First petitioner is Indian Medical Association, second petitioner is Private Hospitals and Nursing Home Association and the 3rd petitioner is Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Association. Petitioners claim to he aggrieved by the description attributed to the activities of managing the Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Diagnostic Centres by calling it a trade and compelling them to obtain what is known as 'trade licence' as envisaged in Section 353 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 read with Schedule X to the Act.2. Sri D.V. Joga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not so much of importance for the payment of fee required to be paid for obtaining a licence nor the requirements of obtaining a licence to carry on the activities and in running private Hospitals, Nursing Homes etc., but it is the description of the name of the licence called as 'trade licen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR237
N.A. Britto, J.1. The applicant was accused in C.C. No. 362/2002/B and has been convicted under Section 10 r/w Section 6 (though specifically not mentioned) of the Madhya Pradesh Control of Music and Noises Act, Samvat 2008 ('Act' for short) and whose conviction has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji by his Judgment and Order dated 20.2.2004.2. The applicant has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short).3. Since second revision is barred under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code, Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/accused placed reliance on the case of Jitender Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi and Ors. : (1998)8SCC770 in support of the proposition that this Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, notwithstanding that Sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code has created a bar in maintaining a second revision petition before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR1453
ORDERShylendra Kumar, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo praying for permission to delete petitioners 2 to 14 from the array of the petitioners. Permitted. Counsel to carry out corrections deleting petitioner 2 to 14.2. The grievance of the petitioner who claims to be a member of Kaidale Gram Panchayat is that the 6th respondent who was a President of Adhyaksha of this Panchayat earlier had been removed by passing a no confidence motion and in the subsequent elections notified for electing a President, the post is yet again reserved in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe woman in which event the 6th respondent notwithstanding loss of confidence of the members of the Panchayat earlier, is again tipped to return to the post of Adhyaksha.3. Sri Chandrashekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if it is allowed, it only amounts to a mockery of the democratic system, that the will of the members is negatived and an unwilling Adhyaksha is impo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4557; 2004(7)KarLJ524
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This Writ Petition raises a short but interesting question as to when can it be said that a 'No Confidence Motion' moved in terms of the provisions of Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayatraj Act, 1993 [for short, 'the Act'] expressing no-confidence in the post of a President of the Panchayat can be said to be carried by two-third of the total Membership of the Panchayat supporting it in a situation where there are certain vacancies in the Membership of the composition of the Panchayat; vacancies casual in nature and due to either resignation or death or like reasons.2. The question is as to whether the number to constitute two- third majority should be computed on the basis of the total number of Members that constitute the Panchayat at that time and are available or should the expression 'total number of members of the Panchayat', include even such number of Members in respect of whom casual vacancies have arisen and have ceased to be Members of the Panchay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(7)KarLJ572
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners claim to be the members of the Grama Panchayat. Petitioners have approached this Court praying for issue of the following writs.--(a) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit a Scheduled Tribe woman or BCM-A or BCM-B to contest for the post of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat;(b) any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.Circumstances under which these petitioners have approached this Court are that the post of President in this Grama Panchayat has been reserved in favour of a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste woman in terms of the Government notification issued in exercise of the power under Section 44 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.2. It appears the members of the Panchayat had expressed their lack of confidence in such a person who had been elected against the post of President having been reserved to such a categ...
Tag this Judgment!