Karnataka Court August 1996 Judgments

T. Chowdanna Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR1269

P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1.Sri M. Siddagangaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to make notice to respondents-1 to 3.2. Though this petition is posted in 'B' Group, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.3. The petitioner in this petition is the grantee of land measuring 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Survey No. 21/1 (New No. 51) situated in Thirtamuthur village, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shimoga District. In this petition, he has challenged the correctness of the order dated 27th December, 1991, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking for a declaration of the sale of the land referred to above made by the petitioner in favour of the 4th respondent as null and void. He has also challenged the validity of the endorsement dated 18th June, 1992 issued by the 2nd respondent, the copy of which has been produced ...

C.B.C.i. Society for Medical Education and anr. Vs. Spl. Lao, Bda and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR257

ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners in this Writ Petition have sought for quashing of the award in LAC.No. 411/78-79 dated 29.9.1994 and also for a mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from acquiring the land in survey No. 80 belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners have also sought for quashing of the preliminary notification dated 19.9.1977 and final notification dated 7.2.1978 issued under Section 17(1)(3) and 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA Act'), in the application filed for amendment of the prayer in the Writ Petition. The said application was allowed by me on 12.7.1996.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The first petitioner is a society and the second petitioner is the Hospital run by the 1st petitioner society. The 1st petitioner society is the owner of the land measuring 11 acres 5 guntas in survey No. 80 of Tavarekere village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said land was pr...

Prabhakar H. Manjare Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3533; 1996(7)KarLJ591

ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The questions raised in these Writ Petitions are common. The petitioners herein are employees employed by the 1st respondent Company. They were charge-sheeted with respect to certain misconduct. Allegedly an enquiry was conducted. After enquiry, they were dismissed from service by an order dated 21.1.1986. Since certain industrial disputes were pending before the National Tribunal with respect to certain disputes, an application was moved under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act by the employer for approval of the dismissal. The same was numbered as Serial Application No. 5 of 1986. It was discovered that the employer had not complied with one of the mandatory requirements of Section 33(2)(b), namely, tendering of wages representing one month. This objection was raised by the workers. After adjudicating the objections raised by the workers, the Labour Court held that the order of dismissal is null and void. The operative portion of the order read as follows:'T...

M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Gangawwa and Other ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1997(75)FLR439]; ILR1997KAR50; 1997(1)KarLJ142; (1997)IILLJ523Kant

1. The short point that arises in these appeals, filed by the insurer, is whether the insurer who has issued a policy under the Motor Vehicles Act can be made liable to pay the interest awarded by the Commissioner for workmens compensation under Section 4A(3) of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. It is contended on behalf of theinsurance, who are the appellants in these appeals, that under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is similar to Section-95(1) of M.V. Act, 1939, in respect of employees of insured travelling in the vehicle they are required to cover only the liability to pay compensation payable under the Act, that under Section 4A(3) of the Act apart from the compensation payable , the Commissioner can award interest if the employer, commits default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, that the award of interest is by way of penalty, that this interest is payable only by ...

M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gangawwa and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1998)ACC257; 1997ACJ825; AIR1997Kant168; (1997)IILLJ523Kant

1. The short point that arises in these appeals, filed by the insurer, is whether the insurer who has issued a policy under the Motor Vehicles Act can be made liable to pay the interest awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. It is contended on behalf of the insurers, who are the appellants in these appeals, that under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is similar to Section 95(1) of M. V. Act, 1939, in respect of employees of insured travelling in the vehicle they are required to cover only the liability to pay compensation payable under the Act, that under Section 4-A(3) of the Act apart from the compensation payable, the Commissioner can award interest if the employer commits default in paying the lo compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, that the award of interest is by way of penalty, that this interest is payable o...

Smt. Vasumathy Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR302

ORDERH.L Dattu, J.1. Pension and gratuity are no longer a bounty, they have become, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court valuable rights and property. This valuable right cannot be just deprived to a claimant by the authorities by most innocuous orders by merely repeating thelanguage employed in the provisions of Rules and Regulations. The Apex Court in the case of POONAMAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INIDA : [1985]3SCR1042 pointed out as follows:'Where the Government servant rendered service to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised, the widow and the dependent minors would equally entitled to the family pension as a matter of right. In fact, we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as a fulfillment of a constitutional promise in as much as it partakes the character of public assistances in case of unemployment, old age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. Relevant rules merely makes effective the constitutional mandate.'In DEOKINANDAN...

Savithramma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1218

ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1.The petitioners, in this petition are the purchasers of land measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas in Survey No. 83 and 19 guntas in Survey No. 19 situated at Kondliganahalli Village, Munganahalli Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Kolar District from the holders of a village office by means of registered sale deed dated 5th March 1969.2. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 30th January 1993, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application of the holder of the village office i.e., the 3rd respondent for regrant of the land in question in favour of third respondent and further directing that the said lands should be vested with the government.3. Sri Papireddy, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is totally illegal and suffers from 'errors apparent on the face of the record in as much as the said ordercame to be passed in utter disregard of ...

Abdul Jabbar Mamu Vs. Mohd. Ruknuddin

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3310; 1996(7)KarLJ19

ORDERP. Krishna Moorthy, J.1. The only question involved in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether an Appeal is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(q) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the dismissal of the application for attachment before Judgment when there is no order for conditional attachment pending consideration of the application.2. A Suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money, in which, he filed an application for attachment before Judgment of the properties of the defendant. Notice was ordered on the above application, but there was no order of conditional attachment. On the defendant showing cause, the Trial Court dismissed the application for attachment before Judgment. Against that order, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and directed the defendant to furnish security. It is this order that is challenged in this Revision Petition.3. The only point urged by the Learned Counse...

Mallavva Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25th November, 1988, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D, passed by the second respondent directing that the possession of the land measuring 33 guntas out of 2 acres 27 guntas in Survey No. 34 of Haldal village, Shorapur Taluk, Gulbarga District should be taken from the petitioner and handed over to the third respondent. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for regularisation of her unauthorised occupation of the land referred to above.2. Sri Papanna, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even according to respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has been in unauthorised occupation on the land in question. He submitted that in the order/communication dated 30th June, 1988, the Assistant Commissioner had directed the Revenue Inspector not to evict the petitioner...

B. Jaikishan Boob Vs. Dindigal Cotton Mills

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR81; 1997(1)KarLJ268

M.P. Chinnappa, J.1.The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Raichur on I.A-I in O.S.No.99/86 preferred this appeal.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S.No.99/86 on the file of the Learned Civil Judge, Raichur against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 86,414-11 with an interest at 18% per annum towards the supply of 50 cotton bales. The respondent appeared in the suit and filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act contending that the contract between the parties was subject to the bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association and therefore the dispute had to be referred to arbitration. The said application was contested by the appellant. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the application. This order is questioned in this appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The learned Co...