Karnataka Court September 1995 Judgments

Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Rachanna

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR673; 1996(5)KarLJ343

Hakeem, J.1. This Appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is against the award of enhanced compensation in respect of 18 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No. 190/1 and 190/2 of Srinivas-Saradage village, in Gulbarga Taluk, acquired for a major irrigation project, under Preliminary Notification, published on 6.9.1990. Although cross-objections are filed by the claimant, since no court fee is paid thereon, it cannot be considered, and hence disposed of accordingly.2. By his award dated 27.10.1992, the LAO. evaluated the land at Rs. 12,000/- per acre. In addition he has awarded further amount of Rs. 146/- for two coconut trees which were found by him on the land. On reference under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) the Reference Court has awarded enhanced compensation for the land at Rs. 30,000/- in addition to separate award of Rs. 43,800/-for coconut trees, Rs. 53,000/- for 'bund' and Rs. 3,000/- for lime trees. For the purpose of valuation of the land the learn...

The State of Karnataka Vs. Vimalchand and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR1840; 1996(41)KarLJ264

Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This is the defendant's Second Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated 14.2.1985, delivered by the Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in Regular First Civil Appeal No. 74/1974 (The State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Vimalchand and Ors.), dismissing the defendants' appeal and confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16.4.1974, delivered by the Court of II Additional Munsiff, Gulbarga, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration, declaring that the plaintiffs-respondents have not been the partners of the firm : Mahaveer Automobiles, Gulbarga, as well as for the decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any recovery of the arrears of tax assessed on the firm - Mahaveer Automobiles from the person and property of the plaintiffs-respondents, in O.S.No. 33/1972.2. The plaintiffs' claimed themselves to be the real brothers. They alleged in the plaint that they have no concern or dealing with the aforesaid firm - Mahaveer Automobiles, Gulbarga. The pl...

Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. The question raised in this writ petition is, whether the 'trainees' engaged by the petitioner-Company come within the purview of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the EPF Act' and 'the Scheme' framed thereunder. 2. Annexure-B is the Standing Order of the petitioner Company which defines 'trainee' as follows : '2(1)- 'Trainee' is a person taken on the rolls of the company for purpose of learning a trade upon terms as may be fixed by the company and with a nominal allowance till otherwise and shall include (i) A trainee in respect of whom the Company undertakes to give implant training, whether stipendiary or otherwise, with an option to employing him, (ii) A trainee who is taken on the rolls to learn work with a view of possible employment by, the company (iii) A trainee who is taken for training under contract which contract shall provide for intensive training in theory and in practice and upon payment of such all...

L. Shreedevi and anr. (Minors) by Guardian Father Vs. State of Karnata ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR868; 1996(2)KarLJ222

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard the petitioners' learned Advocate. A rather unusual procedure has been followed in this case insofar as the petitioners before the Court are the two minor daughters of a transferred Government servant. The father has been shown as guardian on behalf of the minor daughters. The contention raised is that by virtue of the general transfer that was effected in the month of May 1995, that the Government servant concerned was transferred to a place by the name of Tarikere as Revenue Inspector. He proceeded there with his family and shortly, a few weeks thereafter, he was once again served with an order, dated 24-7-1995 seeking to effect a second transfer. The minor daughters contend that they are the persons aggrieved insofar as a result of this action, they would. in the middle of th e academic year, be precluded from being able to get into any educational institution at the place to which their father is transferred and that, apart from other hardship, that t...

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Anantharam Singh

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997ACJ346; ILR1996KAR1088

Padmaraj, J. 1. This Appeal by the K.S.R.T.C. is directed against the judgment and award of M.A.C.T. Kolar, granting compensation of Rs. 50,754- 50 paise to the respondent herein, on account of the damage caused to the car bearing Registration No. CAS. 1061.2. One A. Rajendra Singh was the owner of the car bearing No.CAS.1061. On the date of the accident, the deceased-Rajendra Singh was driving his car from Chintamani to Bangalore. When the said car came near Thalagavara Village, two K.S.R.T.C. buses came from the opposite direction and of them, the bus which was coming from behind the first-KSRTC bus, hit the car of the deceased. As a result of this accident, out of the 3 persons, who were travelling in the car, 2 of them, including the owner of the car Rajendra Singh, died, while one of the inmates of the car suffered injuries to his person. The car of the deceased-Rajendra Singh was heavily damaged due to this accident. Alleging that the accident was caused due to the rash and negli...

Manjanna Vs. K.S.R.T.C.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR724; 1995(6)KarLJ653

ORDERSaldanha, J.1. These two Petitions raise an issue of deep seated legal propriety. The facts are very brief in so far as in the year 1992, the K.S.R.T.C. who are the main contesting respondents to this case had gone through the process of advertising certain posts of Junior Engineers (Civil Class 3) and the five petitioners were among the various persons who had applied for those posts. The written test was completed and the interviews followed thereafter. The Corporation had also indicated for the information of the candidates concerned the results of the aforesaid tests. Thereafter a very unfortunate situation occurred in so far as it is alleged that some complaints were received by the Government finding fault with the methodology adopted for purposes of recruitment. Pursuant to this, a direction was issued by the Secretary of the Department who is one of the respondents before the Court that interviews should be reheld. From the communication addressed to the Corporation, it ap...

Nagappa Vs. General Manager Ksrtc

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1996ACJ921; ILR1996KAR1231

Hakeem, J.1. The claimants are the father and brothers of one H.N. Krishnamurthy who died in a Motor Accident on 14.1.1990 involving BTS bus bearing registration No. CAF 389. The occurrence of the accident resulting in the death of the deceased Krishna Murthy is not in dispute. So far as the actionable negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has apportioned the actionable negligence on the part of the bus driver and the rider of the motor cycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider, at 90% and 10%.2. The only ground on the basis of which the Tribunal has given its finding on the question of contributory negligence is that the motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider, was proceeding leaving a gap of 8' feet towards left side of the road. It is observed that having regard to the time and place of the accident, the rider of the motor cycle ought not to have proceeded in that manner, whereby he had exposed the pillion rider to the risk of accident. We have the ...

Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mysore Snack Food Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(184)ELT337(Kar)

M.L. Pendse, C.J.1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Cantonment Division, Bangalore, has preferred this appeal to challenge the legality of judgment dated November 12, 1990 delivered by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16151 of 1987. By the impugned - Judgment, the learned Judge directed the appellant to refund a sum of Rs. 83,627.50p within two months from the date of receipt of the order.2. The facts which gave rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute and are required to be briefly set-out to appreciate the grievance of the appellant.On March 1, 1986, new Central Excise Tariff Act came into force. The respondent-1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, and inter alia manufacture and sell food products. The respondent-1 filed classification list on March 17, 1986 and claimed that manufacture of food products falls within Tariff item No. 2001.10 of First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. The rate of duty was 10% ad valorem, in vi...

S.A. JalaluddIn Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant156; ILR1995KAR3321; 1995(5)KarLJ651

ORDERHakeem, J.1. This appeal is before uson a reference made by the learned singleJudge under Section 9 of the Karnataka HighCourt Act, 1961.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-9-1983 passed by the XVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 6189 of 1980.3. The question that arose in the suit is whether the notification published under Section 18(1)(a) of the City Improvement Trust Board Act, 1945 ('the Trust Board Act') on 5-11-1971 is barred under the provisions of the Land, Acquisition (Karnataka Amendment & Validation). Act, 1967, ('the Acquisition Act') prescribing a period of two years for issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act.4. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the notification issued by the 1st respondent-defendant on 5-11-1971 acquiring the suit property is invalid in law and for a mandatory injunction directing the 1st respondent to restore the property and for delivery of possessi...

Parameshwarappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR252; 1996(5)KarLJ256

ORDERSaldanha, J.1. This group of Petitions raises one common point which is one both of interest as also of considerable legal significance. I refer to the latter aspect of the matter for the reason that the petitioners are members of the teaching profession and there are several similarly situated persons to whom this Judgment will apply even though they may not have moved this Court through specific Petitions. Briefly stated, the question that is posed for decision is as to whether the U.G.C. scales of salary that were made applicable with effect from 1.1.86 would apply to Lecturers who are attached to the Pre University Course (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.U.C.'). The objection on the part of the Government is a two fold one. In the first instance, it is contended that the P.U.C. has nothing to do with the University in so far as even the examination is conducted by a separate Board and that therefore, the petitioners do not come within the categorisation of University teacher...