Karnataka Court July 1994 Judgments

The Proprietor Vs. Mary

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1995)ACC125

R. Ramadkrishana, J.1. This appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 'Act'). Notice was ordered for the respondent and she is represented.2. By taking consent of the learned Advocates, the appeal is heard on its merits and the following order is passed.3. An important question that requires determination in this appeal is:Whether the maxim 'Action Personalis Moritur Cum Persona' is applicable to claims arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?4. For proper appreciation of this question the brief facts of the case presented is as follows:One Doraswamy who claimed to be a workman in the estate owned by the appellant has filed an application under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Kodagu for the employment injury said to have been sustained on 21.2.1983 when he was employed by the appellant. When this application was pending the said Doraswamy died a natural death. Th...

Manipal Academy of Higher Education (a Deemed Ti Be University), Munic ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1995Kant273; ILR1994KAR2159; 1994(3)KarLJ578

ORDERHakeem, J.1. The constitutional validity of the notification dated 16-9-1993 declaring the petitioner-institution as an 'Educational Institution' under S. 2(c) of the 'Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act', 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the notification dated 16-9-1993, by which the 'Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules', 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), as amended, with special reference to Rule 2(b) of the (Second Amendment) Rules, is challenged in these petitions.2. Two main questions that arise for consideration in these petitions are:--(i) Whether the State has legislative competence to extend the provisions of the Act to the petitioner-institution (which is deemed to be an University for the purposes of the'University Grants Commission Act', 1956) by the impugned notification issued under S.2(c) of the Act? And (ii) Whether the sa...

K. Puttaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR3065; 1995(1)KarLJ395

ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner has sought for relief of issuance of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the notice dated 8-6-1994 - Annexure-A to the Writ Petition issued by the Prescribed Authority, calling the meeting of Gram Panchayat on 17-6-1994 for electing the Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Mayaganahalli Gram Panchayat, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to follow the newly promulgated Government Order as per Notification -Annexure-D dated 20-4-1994 and to accept the proposal of the petitioner to contest as Backward Community member by declaring that new Government Order will be applicable to the proposed election. He has further prayed for a direction to respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh calendar of events and to hold the elections in accordance with law afresh and to grant such other relief as the Court deems fit, including the cost of the Petition....

Mrs. Anjalina D'Souza Vs. the Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1995Kant30; ILR1994KAR2360; 1994(3)KarLJ78

ORDER1. By order dated 18-2-1994 this revision petition was admitted as it was felt that the matter requires consideration and directed to be posted for final hearing on 8-3-1994. The question of very maintainability of the revision petition has been kept alive at the request of the learned counsel for respondent-1.2. When the petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for respondent-1': raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition, and requested the court to decide the question of maintainability of the petition first, before hearing on merits. Sri Manjunath the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; has.no objections for deciding the question of maintainability of the revision petition first; Accordingly, the petition was first heard on the question of maintainability by postponing the hearing on merits to a future date, if the petition is held, to be maintainable.3. That, having been aggrieved by the order dated 10-2-1994, pass...

H. Raghavendrachar Vs. the Registrar, Karnakarnataka University, Dharw ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1995Kant91; ILR1994KAR3530; 1994(4)KarLJ538

ORDER1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought relief of quashing of the intimation/ letter reference No.KU/Aca/PH.D/93-94/ 6801, dated 24-1-94, issued by the first respondent i.e., the Registrar of the Karnataka University, Pavate Nagar, Dharwad, Annexure-N to the writ petition. The petitioner further sought, the direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register the petitioner for Ph.D., in Law.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner having completed his degree course from the Karnataka University in Law, i.e., LL.B., joined LL.M., course and completed the LL.M., course also successfully in the II Class. According to the petitioner's case as regards LL.B, Part-1 he secured pass class; in L.L.B., Part-II, he obtained Second Class and in LL.B., III year he has been successful, but in pass class having obtained 49 per cent of marks and LL. M., he successfully passed in II class. The petitioner...

The Karnataka Housing Board and Others Vs. M/S. Vaijanath Tubewells Lt ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1995Kant126; ILR1994KAR2370; 1994(3)KarLJ604

ORDER1. This petition was listed foradmission. The respondent had enteredcaveat. With the consent of the learnedcounsel appearing on both the sides, thepetition was heard on merits and disposed ofby this order. The respondents in Arbitration Case No. 387 of 1992 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gulbarga. have presented this petition against the order dated 5-1-1994 directing them to express their choice regarding the arbitrators to refer the dispute for arbitration.2. The respondent herein is the applicant/ plaintiff in the arbitration case before the learned Civil Judge. That, under the provisions Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act'), the parties should have beep described as plaintiff and defendants. But, they have been described as petitioner and respondents therein. Hence they are referred to as plaintiff and defendants in this order.3. The plaintiff filed an application underSection 20 of the Act for an order to refer thedispute between him and ...

Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. the Nedungadi Bank Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1995Kant185; ILR1994KAR2441; 1994(3)KarLJ555

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27-2-1982 passed by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. By the said judgment, the lower Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, declaring that the plaintiff-Bank has the first charge in the machinery described in schedule to the plaint. The lower Court further ordered that defendnat-2 is entitled to realise the amount due to it by defendant-1 in pursuance of the decree in O.S. No. 6/1972 by sale of the said mechinery, but subject to the first charge of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant-2 -- Hindustan Machine Tools Limited has preferred this appeal. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are as under:Defendant 2 (appellant) had filed original suit No. 6/1972 against Fix Well Industries of which M.V. Vasudeyan (defendant-1 in the present suit) was the proprietor. The said was filed by the defendant-2 -- Hindustan Machine Tools for the recovery of Rs. 85,621-50....

B.V. Subbachari Vs. B.K. Joyappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR2505; 1994(4)KarLJ364

ORDERP. Krishna Moorthy, J. 1. The Revision Petitioners are the defendants in the Suit. The suit is filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties which is 3.45 acres in Sy.No. 194 of Bemblur Village. The allegation in the plaint is, that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the above lands and that it was purchased under a Sale Deed dated 23-5-1986 from one T.K. Doddappa and T.K. Thammaiah who are the children of late Komari Gowda, who died in 1980. The defendants attempted to trespass on the plaint schedule property on 22-7-1987 and accordingly, a Suit was instituted for permanent injunction. Along with the Suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession.2. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs title and possess...

S. Bhaskar Vs. Gulbarga University

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR2873; 1994(3)KarLJ258

ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J1. By this Petition, the petitioner has sought for Writ of Certiorari quashing the Endorsement dated 17-2-1994 bearing No. GUG/EXAM/ B.Sc.II/93-94/10773 issued by the Respondent-University copy of which Annexure-B to the Writ Petition to the effect that 'there is no provision of revaluation of papers, hence, the application is returned herewith'. The petitioner has further prayed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to Respondent to revalue the petitioner's Mathematics paper of B.Sc.II Year Examination held in October 1993. The facts of the case in brief are: that the petitioner appeared in II Year B.Sc. Examination conducted by the Respondent-University in October 93 and the petitioner appeared in all the five papers. He scored good marks in other papers but failed in the subject of Mathematics scoring 31 marks out of 150 in which the minimum marks prescribed is 52. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had done well in all the five subjects but failed i...

T.B. Guddahalli Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

S.B. Majmudar, C.J. 1. This appellant is the original 4th respondent in Writ Petition No. 8041 of 1994. The said Writ Petition was moved by the present 4th respondent, on the ground that the term of Presidentship of the present appellant expired on 1.2.1994 and thereafter extension of his term upto 30.6.1994 resulting from the order of the State of Karnataka in exercise of its powers under Section 121 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, the 'Act') as per Annexure 'B', was null and void and inoperative at law. The original Writ petitioner-Rule 4 herein, sought for a direction from the Court that election to the post of President of this Society should be held at the earliest. That Petition came to be disposed of with certain directions by the learned single Judge. One of the directions was that the 2nd and 3rd respondents, viz., the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Union of the Co-operative Society viz., Dharwad Co-operative Milk Producers Societies ...