Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
..... any illegal omission to include the names of persons who are entitled to be included inspite of their application for inclusion made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time or illegal inclusion in the electoral roll of the names of persons who are not eligible to be included, is a part of the election process and therefore cannot be a subject matter of challenge in an election petition contemplated under article 429 ..... same principle it should be held that in a case of this type in which the challenge is to the inclusion of ineligible persons in the electoral roll, as the same cannot be adjudicated after election in an election petition, the remedy under article 226; the only remedy 33 available under the constitution ..... the judgment of the supreme court in inderjit barua, air1986sc106 in that case after holding that preparation of electoral roll was not a process of election, the supreme court said thus:"....in a suitable case challenge to the electoral roll for not complying with the requirements of the law may be entertained subject to the rule indicated in ponnuswami's ..... the jurisdiction of the high court under article 226 is barred by article 429, even regarding adjudicating the legality of electoral roll, would amount to the expanding of the bar created by article or to the imposition of a bar, which the ..... result, in that, even if inclusion of names or non-inclusion of the names of persons in the electoral roll is patently illegal, there would be no remedy at all. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
..... (2) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or letters patent of a high court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a commercial division or commercial court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this act.-. ..... relying on the above, he submits that it is only in the rarest case that this court ought to exercise powers under article 227 of the constitution of india to cure a patent error which is self-evident and/or interfere only when - 13 - nc:2023. ..... are satisfied:- (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby (c) a patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e. ..... khc-k:7285 wp no.201900 of 2023 which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction. ..... where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. ..... where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. ..... (6) a patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
1/19 r in the high court of karnataka kalaburagi bench dated this the8h day of september2016present the hon ble dr. justice vineet kothari and the hon ble mr. justice b. veerappa writ appeal no.200059/2016 (s-res) between: nazeer ahmed s/o mr. fakheer ahmed aged about 62 years, occ: retd. sheristedar at principal senior civil judge & cjm court, raichur now residing at h.no.2-2-136, behind hpc, androon quilla, raichur dist: raichur 584 101. (by sri shivakumar kalloor, advocate) and: the principal district & sessions judge, at raichur, dist: raichur 584 101. (by sri syed habeeb, aga) appellant respondent date of order:08.09.2016 wa20005/2016 nazeer ahmed vs the principal district & sessions judge, raichur 2/19 this writ appeal is filed under section 4 of the karnataka high court act, praying to allow the above writ appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2015 passed by hon ble single judge in wp no.201104/2015 and allow the said writ petition no.201104/2015 filed by appellant, in the ends of justice and equity. this appeal coming on for admission this day, vineet kothari j., delivered the following: judgment sri shivakumar kalloor, advocate for appellant. sri syed habeeb, aga for respondent. this writ appeal has been filed by the appellant nazeer ahmed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge on 03.12.2015, dismissing his writ petition no.201104/2015 (s-res).2. the facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are as under:- date of order:08.09. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
(prayer: this crl.a. is filed u/s. 374(2) of cr.p.c by the advocate for appellant praying that this hon'ble court to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.06.2014 passed by the principal sessions judge and human rights court, bijapur in special (human rights) case no: 1/2011 wherein convicting the accused/appellant p/u/s 355 of ipc.) 1. heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. 2. the present appeal is filed under section 374, cr.p.c. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the principal sessions judge and presiding officer of human rights court at bijapur in spl. (hr) 1/11. on the basis of a complaint filed under section 2(d) of the protection of human rights act, (hereinafter referred to as the act, for brevity) before the special court at bijapur, a trial was held against these petitioners for the offence punishable under section 355, i.p.c. ultimately all the appellants have been convicted for the said offence and they have been sentenced to undergo si for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo si for 2 months each. it is this judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.6.2013 which is called in question in this appeal on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. 3. facts leading to the filing of the complaint and consequential trial held by the special court are as follows: a) the respondent-complainant, ramachandran was working .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
..... judgment has held that "the exercise of the discretionary power can be interfered by the high court only if the order passed is violative of some fundamental or basic principle of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent or flagrant error. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
- 1 - nc:2023. khc-k:3808 crl.a no.200069 of 2020 c/w crl.rc.no.200001 of 2020 r in the high court of karnataka, kalaburagi bench dated this the6h day of april, 2023 present the hon'ble mr. justice s.sunil dutt yadav and the hon'ble mr. justice ramachandra d. huddar criminal appeal no.200069 of2020c/w criminal reference case no.200001 of2020in crl.a no.200069 of2020 between:1. yallappa s/o.mahadevappa sedam age:34. years, occ: tailor r/o. yakapoor village now residing at sulepeth village tq:chincholi village dist: kalaburagi - 585 307. appellant (by sri. rajesh g. doddamani., advocate) and:1. the state of karnataka through sulepeth police station, now represented by addl. spp high court of karnataka, at kalaburagi - 585 107.-. 2 - nc:2023. khc-k:3808 crl.a no.200069 of 2020 c/w crl.rc.no.200001 of 2020 2. smt. raziya begum w/o. akhtar miyan age:36. years, occ: household r/o. yakapur village tq: chincholi, kalaburagi dist de facto complainant/respondent no.2. respondents (by sri.prakash yeli, addl. spp., for r1, sri iswaraj s. chowdapur., advocate for r2) this crl.a filed u/s.374 (2) of cr.p.c praying to set aside the judgment and sentence dated1303.2020 passed in spl.c.pocso no.4/2020 by the ii addl. dist. and sessions judge at kalaburagi for convicting the appellant/ accused for the offences punishable under sec.366(a), 376(2)(i) 302, 201 of ipc and u/sec. 6 if pocso act,2012. this criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment on1603.2023, pronounced judgment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
- 1 - nc:2023. khc-k:4907-db crl.a no.200185 of 2016 in the high court of karnataka, r kalaburagi bench dated this the16h day of june, 2023 present the hon'ble mr. justice s.sunil dutt yadav and the hon'ble mr. justice ramachandra d. huddar criminal appeal no.200185 of2016between:1. ramanna s/o narsappa age:27 years, r/o:near manvi, tq:manvi, dist:raichur. appellant (by sri.sachin m. mahajan, advocate) and:1. the state of karnataka through the psi, manvi p.s. dist:raichur, rep, by the addl. state public prosecutor, high court of karnataka kalaburagi bench. respondent (by sri.prakash yeli, addl. spp) this crl.a. filed u/s.374(2) of cr.p.c praying that this hon'ble court to admit this appeal call for the records from the court below, allow this appeal and thereby set aside the judgment & order of conviction dated:23.09.2016 passed in sessions case no.102/2011 by the addl. dist & sessions judge, raichur for the offences punishable u/s302and307- 2 - nc:2023. khc-k:4907-db crl.a no.200185 of 2016 ipc and acquit the appellant in the interest of justice and equity. this crl.a having been heard, reserved for judgment, this day, ramachandra d. huddar j., pronounced the following judgment through video conference: judgment the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of cr.pc. being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of his conviction and sentence passed by the addl. district and sessions judge raichur in sessions case no.102/2011 (arising out of manvi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
..... law. consequently, it must be held that the tribunal had committed a patent error of law in directing reinstatement of the respondent-workmen with all consequential .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
..... the high court, in our view, fell into patent error. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
..... the learned counsel sri venkatesh c mallabadi, appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned herein suffers from patent error of jurisdiction and it is also against the principles of natural justice. .....
Tag this Judgment!