Karnataka Court April 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
United India Insurance Co. Vs. Kalavathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ888; ILR1992KAR2403; 1992(3)KarLJ121
Rama Jois, J1. The facts of this Appeal presented by the United India insurance Company demonstrates that the Insurance Company has to safeguard itself against the acts of its own agents and Officers in order to avoid the foisting of non-existent liability against it.2. The brief facts of the case which are disturbing are these:- The Lorry bearing Registration No. MEZ 4578 belonging to the 5th respondent met with an accident at 6.30 A.M. on 7-5-1984. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal on the allegation that the husband of the first claimant and the father of claimants 2 to 4 died in the motor accident. The appellant Insurance Company was made as a respondent in the claim petition and it was alleged that at the time when the vehicle met with the accident it was covered by an insurance Policy, issued by the appellant. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the Insurance Company, the only evidence adduced was the Policy of Insurance dated 7-5-1984 for the period comm...
P.K. Asha Vs. Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2862; 1992(2)KarLJ557
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. The petitioner who is a student of Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course in the 2nd respondent/College which is within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent/University has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:'Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:(a) call for the records from the respondent-1 which ultimately caused in issuing of Communication dated 21-6-1991 made in No. ACAI/R1/BDS/APPLADM/90-91/1242 and communication dated 30-7-1991 made in No. ACA.1/R1/ADM/BDS/VSDC/ 1988-89, Annexures A and B respectively;(b) declare that the Communication dated 21-6-1991 made in No.ACAI/RI/BDS/APPL ADM/90-91/1242 and Communication dated 30-7- 91 made in No.ACA.1/RI/ADM/BDS/VSDC/1988-89, Annexures A and B respectively, passed by the first respondent, as illegal and void in law;(c) issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to pursue her studies in Bachelor of Dental Surgery Cours...
United India Insurance Co. Vs. Smt. Kalavati and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC424
Rama Jois, J.1. The facts of this Appeal presented by the United India Insurance Company Demonstrates that the Insurance Company has to safeguard itself against the acts of its own agents and Officers in order to avoid the foisting of non-existent liability against it.2. The brief facts of the case which are disturbing are these: -- The Lorry bearing Registration No. MEZ 4578 belonging to the 5th respondent met with an accident at 6.30 A.M. on 7-5-1984. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal on the allegation that the husband of the first claimant and the father of the claimants 2 to 4 died in the motor accident. The appellant Insurance Company was made as a respondent in the claim petition and it was alleged that at the time when the vehicle met with the accident it was covered by an Insurance Policy issued by the appellant. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the Insurance Company, the only evidence adduced was the Policy of Insurance dated 7-5-1984 for the perio...
B.R. Mulani Vs. Dr. A.B. Aswathanarayana and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant257; 1992(3)KarLJ207
ORDERSwami, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31st October, 1979 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 435 of 1973. 2. Respondents 1 to 6 were defendants 1 to 6 in the suit. in this judgment, the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as defendants I to 6. We may also point out here itself that defendants 1 and 2 arc the husband and wife and defendants 3 to 6 are their children. 3. The trial Court has dismissed the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 7-5-1990 executed by the defendants and also for payment of Rs. 10,000/- which according to the plaintiff was overpaid and current interest on the said sum and also for permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff. 4. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit schedule property belonged to the first defendant; that he was the tenant in occupation of the suit schedule property; that defen...
Reunion Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. E.S.i.C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR192]; (1993)ILLJ31Kant
Venkatachala, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), by the branch office of Reunion Engineering Company Ltd., at Premises Nos. 106 and 107, Midford House No. 1, Midford Gardens, Bangalore, questioning the correctness of the order dated November 28, 1991 made in E.S.I. Application No. 77 of 1987 by the Employees' Insurance Court at Bangalore (for short 'the Insurance Court'), by which it (the branch office of Reunion Engineering Company Ltd.) is held to be a shop, that is, an establishment, to which the provisions of the Act are extended by Government of Karnataka, by Notification No. SWL 371 LSI 87, dated January 5, 1985, issued under sub-section (5) of Section 1 thereof (for short 'the Notification').2. Facts lie in a narrow compass-By its letter dated January 31, 1985, Karnataka Regional Office of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation at Bangalore (for short 'the Corporation') sought to obtain information...
M.G. Hanumantha Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1387
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Appellants were the petitioners who filed Writ Petitions; they sought the quashing of the order dated 29-12-1978 whereby the 2nd respondent regulated the fixation of pay of the non-executive employees promoted to an executive grade on or after 1-1-1977; petitioners further sought for a direction to fix the basic/substantive pay of the petitioners in accordance with office order dated 10-7-1976, with effect from 1-5-1979; consequential relief for the arrears of salary was also sought.2. Petitioners were holding the posts of Group-IX (non-executive cadre). On 31st April 1978 there was an internal advertisement offering the employees in this cadre to seek the higher post in E.I. (Executive) cadre. It was only, if sufficient number of existing Group-IX (non-executive) employees were not available, the executive posts were to be filled up by inviting applications from the eligible candidates from the public. The petitioners responded appropriately by filing their app...
Reunion Engineering Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Regional Director
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1879; (1993)ILLJ31Kant
Venkatachala, J.1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), by the Branch Office of Reunion Engineering Company Ltd., at Premises Nos. 106 & 107, Midford House No. 1, Midford Gardens, Bangalore, questioning the correctness of the order dated 28-11-1991 made in E.S.I. Application No. 77/87 by the Employees' Insurance Court at Bangalore (for short 'the Insurance Court') by which it (the Branch Office of Reunion Engineering Company Ltd.) is held to be a shop, that is, an establishment, to which the provisions of the Act are extended by Government of Karnataka, Notification No. SWL 371 LSI 87 dated 5-1-1985 issued under Sub-section (5) of Section 1 thereof (for short 'the Notification'). 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass -By its letter dated 31-1-1985, Karnataka Regional Office of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation at Bangalore (for short 'the Corporation') sought to obtain information from the Branch Office of the R...
B.R. Mulani Vs. Dr. A.B. Aswathanarayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2224
K.A. Swami, J. This Appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 31st October, 1979 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 435 of 1973.2. Respondents 1 to 6 were defendants 1 to 6 in the suit. In this Judgment, the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as defendants 1 to 6. We may also point out here itself that defendants 1 and 2 are the husband and wife and defendants 3 to 6 are their children.3. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit for specific performance of an Agreement dated 7.5.1990 executed by the defendants and also for payment of Rs. 10,000/- which according to the plaintiff was over-paid and current interest on the said sum and also for permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff.4. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit schedule property belonged to the first defendant; that he was the tenant in occupation of the suit schedule property; that defen...
V.L. Shivappa Vs. Director, Agricultural Marketing
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1396; 1992(3)KarLJ118
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The Appeal requires us to interpret Section 123 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966.2. Briefly, the facts that give rise to this Appeal are the following: The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tiptur (the second respondent) had invited tenders for the construction of a Ryoth Bhavan, shops and godowns. The tender of the original third respondent was accepted. It required him to carry out the work for the sum of Rs. 49.31 lakhs. During the course of the work the original 3rd respondent made claims for escalation charges. It is in dispute as to whether or not the work was completed. At any rate, the Market Committee considered the 3rd respondent's claim and agreed to pay 50% thereof provided that the 3rd respondent gave an undertaking in writing that he would not make any further claim and that he would complete the contract work within the stipulated period. However, the 3rd respondent failed to comply with the condition and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›