Karnataka Court July 1972 Judgments
A. Harsha V. Rai Vs. Dr. K.V. Karna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant162; AIR1973Mys162; (1972)2MysLJ460
Sadananda Swamy, J.1. One Harsha sustained injuries as a result of en accident caused by a motor car at about 10.35 p.m. on 10-2-1965. He filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Bangalore, awarded Rs. 6,100/- as special damages and Rs. 10,000/- by way of general damages against the owner of the Car and the Insurance Company. The applicant has come up in appeal M. F. A. 56/170 contending that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate. The owner of the Car and the Insurance Company have filed M. F. A. No. 235/1970 challenging the order of the Tribunal and in the alternative contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.2. The Tribunal held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car that the applicant sustained injuries as a result of the accident and that the owner of the car and the Insurance Company are liable to p...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Hucheshwar L.S. Society, Kotekal Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant44; AIR1973Mys44; (1972)2MysLJ417
Range Gowda, J.1. What has been challenged in this writ petition is the final notification No. RD 32 LHD 66 dated 13-9-1967 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) as amended by Mysore Act No. 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and published in the Mysore Gazette on 26-10-1967, and the ground on which its validity is impugned 15 that the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A(2) of the Act have not been complied with. Though the prayer made by the petitioner is three-fold namely to quash (i) the preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Act vide Annexure A, (ii) the final notification issued under Section 6 vide Annexure B, and (iii) the Award passed under Section 11 vide Annexure C. the learned counsel appearing for him restricted it only to the second prayer i.e., to quash the final notification. The grievance made in that behalf is that the petitioner being a person interested in the land proposed to be acquired was not...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanth Kshatriya Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1972
Reported in: [1973(26)FLR111]; (1973)IILLJ46Kant
ORDERPer Chandrashekhar, J.1. These five petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution are for quashing a common order of the Labour Court on applications made under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Those applications were presented by the petitioners herein (hereinafter referred to as the workmen) who were hotel workers, claiming that they were entitled to receive from respondent 2 herein, their employer (hereinafter referred to as the management), certain amounts towards wages due to them. 2. Under the notification dated 1-6-1967 issued under Ss. 3(1)(a) and S. 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Government of Mysore had fixed minimum rates of wages for different classes of employment like cooks, assistant cooks, servers and helpers in hotel and eating houses, with effect from 1-7-1967. The petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 961, 1024 and 1243 of 1971 were admittedly paid by the management wages of servers; but they have claime...
Tag this Judgment!Appaiah Annappa Desai Vs. Tavanavva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant47; AIR1973Mys47; (1972)2MysLJ278
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This writ petition arises out of an application made by the husband of the 1st respondent for resumption of land under Section 14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. The petitioner, who is a tenant, opposed the said application on several grounds. One of the grounds was that he is a 'protected tenant' of the lands in question and if resumption is allowed, he will not be left with one standard acre of land (vide 4 and 5 of the objections). That contention of the petitioner was not gone into either by the Land Tribunal or by the appellate authority. The Land Tribunal allowed resumption of R. S. 60/2 to an extent of 22 guntas leaving 27 guntas in R. S. 60/3 and 61/3. The extent allowed to remain with the tenant is less than one standard acre.3. The contention of Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the proviso to Subsection (1) of Section 16 of the Act applies to the instant case and since the Land Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Chinnakrishna Setty and ors. Vs. Sri Ambal and Co., Madras
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant74; AIR1973Mys74; (1972)2MysLJ444
1. This is an appeal against the decree passed in O. S. 22/1960 on the file of the District Judge, Mysore. The plaintiff. Sri Ambal & Co.. Madras, which is a registered firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of snuff, instituted the above suit against the defendants under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for en injunction restraining the defendants from using, exhibiting or advertising by themselves or through their servants or agents or others the offending trade mark 'Sri Andal Snuff' and or 'Sri Andal Officers' Snuff' or any other colourable imitation of the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'Sri Ambal Snuff' or 'Sri Ambal Officer's Snuff and from trading under the name and style of 'Sri Andal & Co.', or any other name and style which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiffs' trading stvle 'Sri. Ambal & Co.'. It was also prayed by the plaintiffs that the defendants should be directed to surrender all t...
Tag this Judgment!Radio House Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas157(Kar)
Malimath, J.1. As common questions of law are involved in all these four cases the same were heard together. 2. Writ petition No. 1066 of 1969 is by M/s Radio House, Bangalore, who has prayed for quashing of the order passed by the Chief Enforcement Officer, bearing No. 5/69, dated 29th January, 1969, under section 8(1) of the Emergency Risks (Goods) Insurance Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,212 on the ground that the petitioner has evaded payment of premium during the period when the Act was in force. 3. Writ Petition No. 1739 of 1969 is by Kullappa Spinning Mills, Chitradurga, in which the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26th April, 1969, issued by the Enforcement Office under section 8 of the Act, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,499, on the ground that the petitioner has evaded payment of premium money during the period when the Act in force and that if the petitioner has objections to the as...
Tag this Judgment!Radio House and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant256; AIR1973Mys256
Malimath, J.1. As common Questions of law are involved in all these four cases, the same were heard together.2. Writ Petition No. 1066 of 1969 is by M/s. Radio House. Bangalore, who has prayed for quashing of the order passed by the Chief Enforcement Officer, bearing No. 5/69 dated 29th January, 1969 under Section 8(1) of the Emergency risks (Goods) Insurance Act. 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,212/-, on the ground that the petitioner has evaded payment of premium during the period when the Act was in force.3. Writ Petition No. 1739 of 1969 is by Kullappa Spinning Mills, Chitradurga, in which the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26th April. 1969, issued by the Enforcement Officer under Section 8 of the Act, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,499/- on the ground that the petitioner has evaded payment of premium money during the period when the Act was in force and that if the petitioner has objections to t...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Machiah Vs. M.B. Ponnavva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant1; AIR1973Mys1
B. Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal, by the first defendant in O. S. No. 260 of 1964, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff at Viraipet, is directed against a concurring judgment made by the learned Civil Judge at Coorg, Mercara, in Regular Appeal No. 58 of 1966.2. The material facts, briefly stated, are as follows:-- The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties and thus entitled to the possession thereof with mesne profits. The Pedigree of the parties is as follows:SUBBAIAH_____________________|__________________| |Karumbaiah (deceased) Machaiah (deceased)| |Mandappa-Ummavva Achappa(wife) ___________|__________| | |Ponnavva Machayya Ganapathy(Respondent-1) (Appellant) (deceased)It will be seen from the above pedigree that the plaintiff is the daughter of one Mandappa, who died in the year 1941, leaving behind his widow, Ummawa and the present plaintiff. The said Ummawa died in the year 1961. The first defendant in the suit is the son ...
Tag this Judgment!Gadigeyya Veerayya Kalmath and ors. Vs. Sri Vishnu Dev and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant207; AIR1973Mys207
1. The above appeals are presented against the judgment end decree dated July 24, 1969 in Long Cause Suit No. 1 of 1964 on the file of the District Judge. North Kanara. The said suit was instituted on December 23, 1963 by three plaintiffs. Plaintiff 1 is the deity by name Sri Vishnu Dev of Sri Mahavishnu Devasthan at Sirsi represented by its Moktesar K. V. Govindarao. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the above said K. V. Govindarao and Ramdas Govinda Kuntu.2. Shri Mahavishnu Devasthan in which plaintiff 1 is installed wag declared as public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it is entered at Serial No. A 646 (KWA) in the register of public trusts maintained under the Act.3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:--Lands bearing R. S. No. 44 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas and R. S. No. 288 measuring 2 acres 19 guntas situate in Sirsi Kasaba within the Municipal limits of Sirsi Town belong to the deity plaintiff 1. One Seshagiri Balakrishna Rao S...
Tag this Judgment!Banappa Dyavappa Kumbar Vs. Gurunath Krishnaji Ingalgi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant199; AIR1973Mys199; (1973)1MysLJ99
ORDERB. Venkataswami, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against an Order made by the learned Second Additional District Judge et Dharwar. In M. A. No. 29 of 1971. by which the temporary injunction granted by the learned Civil Judge at Hubli in O. S. No. 48 of 1971 was vacated. Hence this petition by the plaintiff. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : The suit was filed by the petitioner for a permanent injunction in respect of R. S. No. 1/1 of Hirenarti village. In the said suit, I. A. I. was filed for the grant of a temporary injunction against the respondents. The trial Court allowed the application and issued the temporary injunction prayed for. On appeal by the present respondents, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of injunction. It is necessary to set out a few more facts relative to previous proceedings between the parties. 3. The suit land originally he-longed to one Krishnaji, whose son is the first respondent herein. The case on beh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »