Karnataka Court July 1996 Judgments

C.N. Ranganath Vs. M.R. Thyagaraja

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3595; 1996(7)KarLJ712

H.N. Narayan, J.1. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.6.1991 alleging that the defendant is the owner in possession of the suit house, and agreed to sell the same for consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- and executed the deed of Agreement dated 10.6.1991 exhibit P-1. Defendant received an advance of Rs. 30,000/- on the date of agreement agreeing to receive the balance of consideration within three months from the date of agreement and to execute the sale deed. But the 'defendant failed to execute the sale deed inspite of repeated requests. The defendant according to plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract even though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence the suit for specific performance.2. Defendant has not disputed execution of the agreement exhibit P-1 and the advance of Rs. 30,000/-. He has also not disputed that he had agreed to receive the balance of Rs. 1,01,000/- wit...

Hubert Lobo Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore and ors ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(4)KarLJ524

ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the award passed by the Labour Court. The worker-petitioner herein was driver of the vehicle bearing No. MYF 9032 on March 29, 1987. While he was driving the said vehicle Mangalore to Dharmasthala route an accident took place near Belthangady. In this connection a disciplinary action was taken against him and an article of charges was issued on September 17, 1987, alleging inter alia that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. He submitted his explanation denying the charges. Without any further detailed enquiry the Disciplinary Authority passed the order on 9/ February 11, 1988, withholding the ensuing increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect and to recover a sum of Rs. 941.94, being the cost of damages caused to the vehicle.2. The worker raised a dispute before the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the worker contended inter alia that he is not guilty of the ch...

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chikkegowda and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1980

S. Venkataraman, J. 1. In all these appeals, the insurer has questioned the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants.2. Though, in all the claim petitions the claimants impleaded the appellant as the insurer, they did not give any particulars regarding the insurance of the vehicle. The insurer in the objections filed has taken up the following defence:'This respondent is wrongly impleaded as a party. There is defect of misjoinder to the application. Inspite of repeated reminders, the second respondent has not come forward and this respondent has no knowledge as to the cover of insurance and hence denies any liability to indemnify the second respondent.'3. The Tribunal has fastened the liability on the insurer only on the ground that there is no specific denial of the fact of insurance by the appellant.4. The claimants who have sought to enforce their claim against the insurer are required to allege and if denied by the insurer ...

M.R. Narahari Pandit Vs. Veenadevi Jalan and anr.

Court: Karnataka

M.P. Chinnappa, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the owner of the vehicle who had met with an accident and sustained damages to enhance the compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, in MVC No. 68 of 1988 dated 26.11.1990 wherein the Tribunal was pleased to award a sum of Rs. 12,300/- with interest at 9 per cent from the date of petition till the date of payment.2. Heard learned advocate for appellant and learned advocate for respondents.3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 50 per cent of the cost of the spare parts used for repairing the vehicle and in support of his argument he relied upon a decision in Mysore (now Karnataka) State Road Trans. Corporation v. N.R. Somashankar 1982 ACJ (Supp) 39 (Karnataka).4. Repelling the arguments learned Counsel for respondents submitted where the vehicle in question is of 1970 model and the expert has correctly assessed the damage and deducted 50 per cent, the ...

Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron O ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1997Kant62; 1996(3)KarLJ1

ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J.1. The Karnataka State Electricity Board is the Appellant. They have challenged the Judgement of the Single Judge in W.P. 1531/1991 whereby the demand for interest for the period 16-12-1981 to 31-3-1987 on belated payment of electricity charges was set aside.2. The first respondent-writ petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the production of Ferro Alloys and is one of the largest consumers of High Tension Electricity in the State. Special long-term agreements were entered into in the year 1977 under Section 49(3) of the Electricity Supply Act 1948 between the petitioner and the Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'.) The petitioner was being charged at a confessional rate of 12.7 paise per Unit of power consumed in its plant. By the Electricity Supply Karnataka Amendment Act 1981 Section 49(5) was inserted in the parent Act by which petitioner and other similar establishments became liable to pay at the Uniform Tariff ra...

Management of Sandoz (India) Ltd. Vs. C.C. Joseph and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ672Kant

P. Krishna Moorthy, J. 1. The second respondent-management in W.P.No. 6456 of 1985 is the appellant. The question involved is as to the scope and ambit of the power of the Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. There were certain demands made by the employees of the appellant company in the year 1981-82. A regular industrial dispute was raisedby the Secretary General of the Association of Chemical Workers, Bombay, before the conciliation officer and at the intervention of the conciliation officer, a regular settlement under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was arrived at on December 7, 1981. Under the said settlement, a voluntary retirement scheme was evolved and announced in accordance with the terms of the settlement and was annexed to the said agreement.In terms of the scheme for voluntary retirement, the writ petitioner applied for voluntary retirement by Annexure '6' application on February 18, 1982. The appellant...

The Management of J.G. Co-operavtive Hospital Ltd. Vs. S.S. Chougula

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR2238

ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The question raised in these Writ petitions is regarding the right of the Management to lead evidence after the industrial Tribunal holds that the domestic enquiry held is not valid and proper. Brief facts of the case are as follows :On the basis of the finding entered in the domestic enquiry punishment of dismissal was imposed on the worker. He raised an industrial dispute before the Tribunal. The worker had alleged that there was no fair and proper domestic enquiry. Statement of objection was filed by the Management disputing the stand of the worker. It also interalia contended that the claimant before the labour Court is not a worker and that he will not come within the purview of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The claim statement was filed in November 1982. The counter statement was filed on 2.3.1983. Thereafter it is seen that the dispute was transferred to the Industrial Tribunal on 1.9.1986. The Management submitted an additional wri...

J. Suresh Vs. Corporation of City of Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR2430; 1996(6)KarLJ380

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner prays for quashing of the special notices dated 29.6.1985 and 7.12.1985 (Annexures-A and B) issued under Rule 9 of the Taxation Rules contained in Part II of the III Schedule to the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 with a consequential prayer to direct the respondent-Corporation to re-determine the annual rateable value (in short 'ARV') of the premises in question keeping in view the standard rent determinable under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 as laid by the Supreme Court in the case of BALBIR SINGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI, : [1985]152ITR388(SC) and for consequential orders of refund of excess tax deposited by the petitioner.2. According to the petitioner, he is one of the Co-owners of the premises bearing Municipal Corporation No. 76, located at Mission Road, in Bangalore. The premises in question is a new building which was constructed after demolition of the old structure. On completion of the part of the constructio...

S. Venkatappa by Lrs. Vs. D.N. Purushotham Rao

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3226; 1996(6)KarLJ161

M.B. Vishwanath, J.1. Heard both Counsel. The defendant is the appellant in this case. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No. 1275/1970 on the file of the II Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore, for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- with interest, against the defendant.2. The learned Munsiff, by his judgment dated 14.7.1975 decreed the suit. The defendant preferred the appeal R.A.No. 4/1986 on the file of the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore.3. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal. The appellant-defendant has filed the present appeal.3. Both the Courts-below believed the evidence of the plaintiff-P.W.1 and the chit, Ex.P-9, in the suit. The chit Ex.P-9, on which both the Courts relied, was No. 1 admittedly filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint.4. It is contended in this Court by the Learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant that Ex.P-9 chit is the suit document and it should have been produced along with the plaint in view of Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. Order 7 Rule 14(1) o...

Devesh Sandeep Associates and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commiss ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3651

ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioners are before this Court, inter alia questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by Regional Provident Commissioner dated 9.9.86 holding that Devesh Sandeep Associates - 1st petitioner herein, is bound to comply with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the P.F. Act') for the period from 1.8.1985 to July, 1986 in respect of employees working in the firm M/s Devesh Sandeep Associates and Mody Sales Service, No. 23 , Ulsoor road, Bangalore.2. Brief facts are: First petitioner is partnership firm of which petitioners 2 to 4 are partners. Main business of the firm is selling and marketing of leather cloth/upholstery, wall paper and tiles. Between 1.7.1985 and 30.6.1986, the total sales of the firm has been approximately to the tune of Rupees Eighty Five lakhs. It is asserted in the petition that out of the aforesaid turnover leather cloth sales alone constitutes Rs. 76 lakhs. Sale...