|
|
Database updates
Judgments
Huchappa @ Hucharayappa and Others vs State of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 01 Apr 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 326 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, since the High Court has not applied its mind to various contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has in a casual manner disposed of the appeal set aside the impugned judgment - Remitted the matter to the High Court.
|
Ramachandra Krishna Bhatta vs State of Karnataka and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 Mar 2008]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Held, on receipt of application, the Tribunal has to issue public notice in the village in which the land is situated calling upon the landlord and all other persons having interest in the land to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. It is also incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to issue individual notice to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land - Land Tribunal has not fulfilled the requirement which is mandatory and the Appellate Authority rightly interfered with the order of the Land Tribunal and set aside the same - Appeal dismissed.
|
Girias Investment Private Limited and Another vs State of Karnataka and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Mar 2008]
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 - Challenging acquisition proceedings - Held, it is open to the court to go into the question of malafides raised by a litigant but in order to succeed, much more than a mere allegation is required - Inference of malafide based on the ground that the change in the location of the trumpet interchange and the access road had been suddenly made without proper application of mind to help certain unidentified individuals resulting in the acquisition of the land belonging to the appellants is, thus, without any factual basis - Appeal dismissed.
|
Tukaram and Others vs State of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Mar 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 304(II) - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, trial court and the High Court have analysed the evidence in great detail and have concluded that the appellant was the author of the crime - Stand that PWs. 1, 2 & 5 were related to the deceased is really of no consequence - Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness - It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person - Appeal dismissed.
|
Rathnaiah vs State of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Mar 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 376 , 324 r/w s. 34, 342 r/w s. 34 - Appeal against conviction - Held, no attempt appears to have been done by the High Court to appreciate the rival stand and to analyse the evidence in its proper perspective - Manner in which the appeal has been dealt with is not a correct way to deal with the appeal - Set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to High Court.
|
Mallikarjuna @ Mallu vs State of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 Feb 2008]
Indian Penal Code, s. 302 - Trial Court acquitted the accused - High Court set aside the acquittal - Appeal against - Held, dying declaration is corroborated by recovery of blood-stained pant and shirt on the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellant - Not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court - Only one injury was caused although there was enough opportunity to cause more injuries on the person of the deceased - Conviction of the accused-appellant is altered from under s. 302 to 304 Part II - Appeal disposed of.
|
B. Vishwanath vs State of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Feb 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 307, 427 and 448 - There was no indication in the order as to whether the appeal was dismissed or allowed certain directions were given - Appeal against - Held, manner in which the appeal has been dealt with is not a correct way to deal with the appeal - No serious attempt appears to have been done by the High Court to appreciate the rival stand and/or to analyse the evidence in its proper perspective - Remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration - Appeals allowed.
|
Jagadeesh and Another vs State of Karnataka and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Feb 2008]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 - Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the appellants - High Court set aside concurrent findings of fact and rejected the application - Appeal against - Held, High Court is entitled to interfere with the orders of the Tribunals below when the material evidence on record was ignored or a finding was such that no court would come to such conclusion or that the decision of the Tribunals below was manifestly unjust - High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that evidence and material on record would clearly establish that appellants were not able to prove that they were the tenants in respect of the scheduled land under the respondents - Appeal dismissed.
|
Venu @ Venugopal and Others vs State of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 30 Jan 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 392 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, provision defines robbery which is theft or extortion when caused with violence of death, hurt or wrongful restraint - When there is no theft committed, then as a natural corollary there cannot be robbery - Robbery is only an aggravated form of offence of theft or extortion - It is not necessary that violence actually should be committed but even attempt to commit it is enough - Evidence of the victim, her husband, the factum of recovery of the vehicle used has clearly established the commission of offence by the appellants - Appeal dismissed.
|
Som Mittal vs Government of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Jan 2008]
Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961; criminal Procedure Code - Alleged violation of ss. 25 and 30(3) - Petition to quash the complaint and cognizance was dismissed - Appeal against - Held, inherent power of the High Court should not be exercised according to whims and caprice and it has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases - Power under s. 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold - Concurring Judgment making strong recommendation to the U.P. Government to immediately issue an Ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail by repealing Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976, and empowering the Allahabad High Court as well as the Sessions Courts in U.P. to grant anticipatory bail - Appeal dismissed.
|
V.G.K. Design and Development Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs H.N. Narayana Reddy
[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 16 Nov 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : H. N. NAGAMOHAN DAS1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19-4-2007 in O.S. No. 2927 of 2005 passed by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City decreeing the suit of the
|
B.S. Puttaswamy and Others vs M.C. Shyamala Kumari and Another
[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. The accused in C.C. No. 117 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
|
Jaya Simha vs State of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 21 Sep 2007]
Indian Penal Code, ss. 255 to 260, 265, 467, 468, 471 to 475, 420 r/w 120B; Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Bail application rejected by High Court - Appeal against - Held, having regard to the nature of involvement alleged and the role attributed to the appellant, and the period already spent by the appellant in Jail, find it a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant - Appeal allowed.
|
Malleshappaa vs State of Karnataka
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 21 Sep 2007]
Indian Penal Code, ss. 302, 364, 201 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Conviction is based on circumstantial evidence - Held, there is no convincing evidence placed by the prosecution to show that there was motive and that the deceased had illicit relationship with wife of the appellant - First information report lodged by PW-10 itself is highly doubtful - PW-10's evidence itself does not reveal any circumstances to hold that the prosecution has established the charge against the appellant - Appellant's failure to offer any explanation in his statement under s. 313 Cr.P.C. is not a circumstance to hold appellant guilty - Circumstantial evidence in order to sustain the conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused - Prosecution did not establish the charges framed against the appellant - Appeal allowed.
|
State of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Sep 2007]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Interpretation and/ or application of the provisions of s. 19 - Order of sanction was issued by the Commissioner of Stamps solely relying on or on the basis of a purported report issued by the Inspector General of Police - High Court order of sanction being illegal, the judgment of conviction could not be sustained - Appeal against - Held, order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority - It was found that except the report, no other record was made available before the sanctioning authority - Order of sanction also stated so - PW-8 also did not have the occasion to consider the records except the purported report - Impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity - Appeal dismissed.
|
State of Karnataka vs Raju
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 Sep 2007]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 376 - Order of High Court reducing custodial sentence of respondent to 3 years instead of seven years as was imposed by Second Additional Sessions Judge - Appeal against - Held, measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused - It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act - There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed minimum on the respondent - To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced - Considering the legal position and in the absence of any reason which could have been treated as "special and adequate reason" reduction of sentence as done by the High Court is clearly unsustainable - Appeal allowed.
|
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore vs Bharath Fritz Werner Limited
[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 05 Sep 2007]
The Order of the Court is as follows : 1.The correctness of the order of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench atBangalore(hereinafter called as the "Tribunal" in short) passed in Appeal No. EW/43/2005,
|
Jaya Diagnostic and Research Centre Limited vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad
[CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 03 Sep 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : T.K. JAYARAMAN (TECHNICAL MEMBER)1.This Bench, passed the Final Order Nos. 324 to 329/2007 dated 6-3-2007. In the said Final Order, the appeal Nos. C/254/2004 and C/255/2004 were dismissed in view of the fact that the
|
Jayalakshamma and Another vs Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District and Others
[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2007]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. Petitioners, questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2004 in proceedings No. R.A. 51/2002-03 passed by first respondent and the order dated 22nd October, 1998 in proceedings No.
|
New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore vs Rama and Another
[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 29 Aug 2007]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 192302721.xml (for short, the Act'), aggrieved by the order/award dated 30th September, 2002 of the
|
Adiga's Abhiruchi and Others vs Adiga's Fast Food
[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 28 Aug 2007]
Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Appeal to challenge order restraining defendant by way of injunction from using trade mark 'ADIGA ABHIRUCHI' being deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark 'ADIGA'S' – Defendant submitted that 'ADIGA' being common community name in southern part of India is generic in nature, synonymous with business of catering and he had adapted his own name and not infringed any existing trade name – Held, contention of defendant that name ADIGA being community name, the same could be used and therefore N.K. ADIGA has been used cannot be accepted since the same would infringe trade mark of plaintiff - The said name is a direct infringement of the trade name of plaintiff which is registered one; both plaintiff as well as defendants are in business of catering and preparing vegetarian food articles and as such if defendant runs such another outlet indicating very same name of plaintiff merely by prefixing or suffixing certain other name which is similar to trade mark of plaintiff, question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss would not arise since common customer would believe that same is sister concern or another outlet of original outlet viz., one being run by plaintiff – Appeal dismissed.
|
C. S. Mohan vs Official Liquidator, High Court of Karnataka and Another
[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 28 Aug 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : V. GOPALA GOWDA1. The appellant has called in question the order made by the company court in C. A. No. 830 of 2003 in Co. P. No. 62 of 1987 dated November 13, 2003. By the impugned order the learned single judge has
|
Super Spinning Mills Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur
[CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 28 Aug 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : T.K. JAYARAMAN (TECHNICAL MEMBER)1.These appeals have been filed against the Orders-in-Appeals No. 10 and 11/2006(T) - C.E. dated 15-2-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals),
|
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Guntur vs CCL Products (India) Limited
[CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 24 Aug 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : T.K. JAYARAMAN (TECHNICAL MEMBER)1.Revenue has filed these appeals against the following Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Guntur.(i)09/2006(G) CE dated 25-1-2006,
|
Kusum Alloys Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
[CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 22 Aug 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : DR. S.L. PEERAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER)1.The misc. applications filed by the Revenue and the party are taken up together for disposal. The Tribunal, Chennai Bench, had remanded the matter by Final Order Nos. 619 to 623/1999
|
|