Karnataka Court February 1973 Judgments
Hanuman Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., Udipi Vs. Ruby General Insurance Co. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant335; AIR1973Mys335; ILR1973KAR351
Nesargi, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. MYX 6990 against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge. South Kanara, Mangalore holding that the owner is liable to pay compensation to the respective claimants as directed in the said award.2. Stage carriage bearing registration No. MYX 6990 was granted a stage carriage permit as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). That (permit is available on record at Ex. R-3. As per the terms of this permit the vehicle was to ply according to the timings mentioned in the permit from Udipi to Hoode and back viz. Santhekatte and Kemmannu, from Udipi to Innanje and back, and from Udipi to Alevoor and back. The permit was to expire on 11-12-1970. The case of the claimants was that there was a marriage in Kemmannu and therefore, one Nicholas Bardoza hired this bus and the marriage party consisting of about 50 ...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Vs. Yellappa Amhase
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant317; AIR1973Mys317; ILR1973KAR220; (1973)1MysLJ353
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This petition by the tenant under Section 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, is directed against an order made by the Second Addl. District Judge, Dharwar, in Civil Appeal No. 181/65, whereby the order of eviction made by the Addl. Munsiff, Hubli, in Mis. A. No. 154 of 1963, has been affirmed.2. The case of the landlord is that he bona fide and reasonably requires the suit shop premises for the expansion of his cloth business which at present is being carried on in the adjoining shop premises. The tenant has resisted the petition on various grounds which it is unnecessary to set out for the purpose of the present revision. The Trial Court made a decree for eviction. The tenant, on appeal to the District Judge, filed several I. As. purporting to be made under Rule 27, Order 41, Civil P. C. seeking to produce several photographs showing that subsequent to the order of eviction, and during the pendency of the appeal, the landlord had leased out the shop premi...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Nithyananda Vs. Mysore State Agro Industries Corporation by Its M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant314; AIR1973Mys314; (1973)1MysLJ481
Nesargi, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant in Misc. (M. A. C.) No. 126 of 1970, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge, Bangalore, as against the award passed by the Tribunal dismissing his claim petition.2. The case of the claimant was that he was a medical representative drawing a salary of about Rs. 655/- per month in addition to bonus and other perquisities, and that his duty was to go to medical practitioners, display samples and push up sales. He was, in the course of his duties, riding a motor-cycle and was carrying a bag containing samples of medicines, connected literature, order books etc. At about 4.00 p. m, on 1-5-1970, he was proceeding by the side of Congress Office in Bangalore and towards Anandarao Circle. A trailer bus was parked on the left-side of the road, but facing opposite to the direction in which he was proceeding. He was riding his motor-cycle on his proper part of the road. The motor-cycle was proceeding at an average speed...
Tag this Judgment!Jaya Bharath Enterprises and anr. Vs. S. Dhondusa Silk Emporium and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant319; AIR1973Mys319; ILR1973KAR187; (1973)1MysLJ356
1. The appellant who was respondent 2 in M. V. C. No. 181 of 1971 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, has, in this appeal, challenged the award passed by the Tribunal saddling it with the liability of the insurer, who was respondent 4 in the said claims case to Rs. 2,000/-only as provided under Section 95 (2) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. A jeep belonging to the appellant crashed into the shop of the claimant and caused damage to the property of the claimant. The Tribunal assessed this damage at Rs. 10,500/- and passed an award limiting the liability of the insurer to a sum of Rupees 2,000/- only in view of Section 95 (2) (d) of the Act3. The only point urged before us is that the Tribunal was wrong in limiting the liability of the insurer to a sura of Rs. 2,000/-only and it ought to have held that the insurer was liable to pay the whole amount of the damages to the claima...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Mangalore Port Trust Vs. Mangalore Port Trust and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: [1973(27)FLR249]; ILR1973KAR272; (1973)IILLJ521Kant; (1973)1MysLJ386
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 praying for an order to quash the award made by the Industrial Tribunal in Mysore, Bangalore, in I.D. No. 1 of 1969. 2. The workmen of Mangalore Port Trust by their union secretary is the petitioner before us. On the claim for payment of bonus, a dispute arose as between the workmen and the management of the Mangalore Port Trust. The Government of Mysore referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under S. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, setting out the following two points for adjudication : 'I. Are the management of the Port Trust Mangalore, justified in refusing payment of bonus to the workers for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66 at the rate of 20 per cent of their total earnings II. If not, to what quantum of bonus are the said workers entitled for the said years ?' Before the Tribunal, the parties submitted their respective statements, which are fully set out in the impugned award and we are not repeating...
Tag this Judgment!The Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. E. Ramaswamy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant320; AIR1973Mys320; ILR1973KAR184; (1973)1MysLJ318
1. The appellant in these two appeals is M/s. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. They arise out of MVC No. 22 of 1970 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge, Tumkur, and Mis. No. 30 of 1968 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge, Shimoga, respectively.2. As a common question of law has been raised in these two appeals, we propose to dispose of these two appeals by a common judgment.3. The two accidents, out of which the said claim cases were instituted, took place much prior to 2-3-1970. The owners of the vehicles concerned in the two accidents disputed the claims put forward by the claimants and contended that there was no rash and negligent driving of the concerned vehicles at the relevant points of time and, therefore, they were not liable to pay any compensation. Evidence was adduced and the claims Tribunal held in both the cases that the drivers of the concerned vehicles had driven the concerned vehicles rashly and negligently...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Venkatappa Setty Vs. B.N. Lakshmiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant350; AIR1973Mys350; (1973)1MysLJ473
Honniah, J. 1. This is an appeal by the owner of the vehicle from an award dated 29-11-1969 giyen by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Bangalore in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1S67. 2. On 26-10-1966 the car bearing No. MYX 3808 belonging to the appellant driven by him at about 10 A.M. at Pantharapalya bus stand, dashed against Geetha Devi aged about 16 years, daughter of Lakshmaiah respondent No. 1, as a result of which she sustained injuries and died. 3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on the around that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the appellant. The Insurance Company second respondent, contended that one Raghavendra Hegde had taken the Insurance Policy in respect of the oar and that subsequently he sold the car to the appellant on 11-7-1966 and the policy in respect of the car, by virtue of sale of the vehicle, had lapsed and therefore the Insuranc...
Tag this Judgment!H.L. Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Kant352; AIR1973Mys352
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The order impugned in this petition was made by the Government of Mysore in their proceedings dated 7th December, 1963. By the said order, sanction was accorded to the appropriation of 0.31 guntas of lend within S. No. 59 of Honnarayanahalli village. Nelamangala Taluk, for cultivation purpose and to grant the same in favour of K. M. Puttashamachar at an upset price subject to the reservation and recovery of value. 2. K. M. Puttashamachar is none other than respondent No. 2 before us. The writ petition was presented to this Court on 22-7-1970 nearly after seven years from the date of the order of grant. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he was not aware of the grant. 3. The averment made by the petitioner appears to be not correct. The petitioner was a shanbogue of the village and also a rival applicant to the said grant. He was signatory to the darkest prepared on the application of the second respondent. In view of these facts, we are unable t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›