Karnataka Court September 1996 Judgments
Canara Motor Transport Company, Koppa, Chickmagalur Vs. K.M. Aboobakke ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)KarLJ449
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-A order passed by the 6th respondent herein in a proceeding initiated by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent alleged that he was employed by the 2nd respondent and his services have been terminated with effect from March 20, 1992. He, therefore, filed an application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, seeking payment of gratuity. The petitioner herein appeared and raised various contentions. In view of the fact that the proceedings under the I.D. Act is pending, I do not want to pronounce one way or the other on the merits of the case. The Controlling Authority, 6th respondent herein, considered the objections and held that the 1st respondent is entitled to payment of gratuity as claimed by him. The said order is challenged by the employer in this writ petition.2. Mr. V. H. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the w...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Coorg Orange Growers Co-operative Society Vs. Assistant Com ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR213
B.N. Mallikarjuna, J.1. Issuance of warrant to collect a sum of Rs. 71,399/- on March 16, 1995 in C.Misc. 166/94 on the file of the Additional Munsiff at Virajpet on an application by the respondent under Section 13(3)(b) of the act is called in question in this revision.Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.2. The learned Counsel contends that in view of the fact that revision petitioner is a State Industrial Undertaking, the Court was not right in issuing fine levy warrant on March 16, 1995 in view of Government Notification CI 16 PUM 94 dated December 31, 1994. Further he submitted that subsequent to the filing of the revision petition, he has made a payment of Rs. 5,000/-. The learned Government Pleader contends that the issuance of warrant is in accordance with law since the revision petitioner failed to make payment after once he appeared in Court and took time.3. Government on December 31, 1994 issued notification extending cert...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prakashchand Hanuman and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ960
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. These two groups of civil revision petitions need to be subdivided in so far as the first group of 9 civil revision petitions have been presented by the insurance company and they assail the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal holding the insurance company liable to pay the compensation in relation to the incident that took place on 28.10.1989. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the truck No. DIG 8377 belonging to the original respondent No. 2 and which was being driven by the original respondent No. 1, was operated in a rash and negligent manner and that it was responsible for the damage that occurred to the property of the claimants. What is pointed out by the learned advocate who represents the petitioners is that it is well-settled law that the primary responsibility in the case of a motor accident is not that of the insurance company. The liability in law undoubtedly devolves on the driver and the owner where the compensation is attributable ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prakashchand Hanuman Bhugale an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC656
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. These two groups of Civil Revision Petitions need to be sub-divided insofar as the first group of 9 Civil Revision Petitions have been presented by the Insurance Company and they assail the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation in relation to the incident that took place on 28.10.1989. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Truck DIG 8377 belonging to the original second respondent and which was being driven by the original R-1, was operated in a rash and negligent manner and that it was responsible for the damage that occurred to the property of the claimants. What is pointed out by the learned Advocate who represents the petitioners is that it is well-settled law that the primary responsibility in the case of a motor accident is not that of the Insurance Company. The liability in law undoubtedly devolves on the driver and the owner where the compensation is attributable to the accident c...
Tag this Judgment!K. Lakshminarayana Upadhay Vs. Union of India(Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1007
ORDER ON I.A.I.R.V. Raveendran, J1. I.A.I is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to record evidence of the Bank's witnesses not by resorting to acceptance of affidavits in place of examination-in-chief but, by oral examination.2. The Bank has filed an application under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and financial Institution Act, 1993 against the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (third respondent). The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal is adopting a procedure whereby examination-in-chief of the witnesses is taken in the form of affidavits and the said witnesses are made available for cross-examination by the other side. Petitioner contends that this is contrary to the provisions of C.P.C. and principles of natural justice. According to him, the Tribunal should record the evidence of witnesses even in regard to examination-in-chief and should not accept affidavits.3. Section 22 of the said Act provides...
Tag this Judgment!Bhs Managing Committee Vs. Sringeri Mutt
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3558; 1996(7)KarLJ582
ORDERA.M. Farooq, J.1. These revision petitions are filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, is directed against the order dated 25.11.1995 in HRC No. 10284/91 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore.2. The revision petitioner in HRRP. 338/96 is the tenant against whom the respondent herein initiated eviction proceedings under Section 21(1)(h) & (p) of the Act. After trial, the Lower Court has passed an order of eviction against the revision petitioner under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act, rejecting the prayer made by the landlord under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act.3. HRRP No. 338/96 is filed by the tenant and HRRP No. 593/96 is filed by the landlord aggrieved by the order, rejecting his claim under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act.4. When the matter came up for admission it was submitted by Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant that by Karnataka Act No. 32/94 Section 2 of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ha...
Tag this Judgment!A Citizen of India Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3136; 1996(7)KarLJ426
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The National Law School of India University, Bangalore, in its publication 'March of the Law, 1994', while reviewing legal developments in India in the field of Education Law, has noticed that '1992-93 will go down in the history of constitutional litigation on education. The debate that started with 'PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA, : (1984)IILLJ481SC , on the issue of policy on education, specially relating to professional education, dictates several dimensions and reached UNNIKRISHNAN v. STATE OF AP, : [1993]1SCR594 , via MOHINI JAIN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, : [1992]3SCR658 . The Parliament also took immediate notice of the said developments and appropriately responded by enacting Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 and the Dentist (Amendment) Act, 1993. But all in vain. The mischief sought to be remedied could still found their ways to survive with higher vigour openly declaring 'we are unconquerable. We survive with ten heads like Ravana.' The enquiri...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maqbool Ahmed and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ984; 1997(2)KarLJ149
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. These two civil revision petitions have been directed by the insurance company against the claims that have been awarded by the Tribunal in connection with an accident that took place on 13.6.1990. The compensation amounts that have been awarded are relatively modest in so far as they are Rs. 8,750/- in one case and Rs. 5,000/- in the second case. The insurance company has pointed out to this Court that there were no details given of the driving licence possessed by the truck driver who had caused the accident and that the insurance company had undertaken an investigation into the matter. This investigation, took some time and it has now been disclosed, after the lower court disposed of the proceeding, that the driver in question only had a L.M.V. licence that too, a learner's licence and that therefore, effectively, he is re- duced to the position of a person who did not possess a valid driving licence for purposes of operating the heavy motor vehicle, namely, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Fritz Werners Ltd. Vs. Smt. Channawwa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: I(1996)ACC153
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the L.Rs. of one S.V. Uppin who died in the accident on 22.3.1989.2. The occurrence of the accident and the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is no more in dispute. Even otherwise there is adequate material on record, which would establish that the accident and the resultant death of S.V. Uppin was on account of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. CAI-7769.3. The claimants in turn have preferred their cross objections, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which according to them is grossly inadequate.4. The deceased was a State Government servant, working as an Excise Inspector, drawing a gross salary of Rs. 2,915/- at the time of the accident. According to the extract of service register his age is held to be 39 years. P.W.1, the w...
Tag this Judgment!Gurubasawwa Vs. Irawwa W/O Chinnappa Barashetti and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant87; I(1997)DMC402; ILR1996KAR3615; 1996(7)KarLJ649
1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 299 and 384 of the Indian Succession Act, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 17-1-92 passed in P & S.C. 6/89 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff, Bijapur.2. The brief fact leading to this appeal are one Chinnappa Basettappa Borashetti was working as a lineman in the Telecommunication Department. He married the respondent No. 1 in the year 1970 at Sitimani and the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu Lingayath custom. From the said legal wedlock respondents 2 to 4 born to them. It is also stated that Chinnappa had married appellants Nos. I and 2 issues were born (including R-5 and a son) from the said legal wedlock. However, the whereabouts of the son are not known for the last 12 years. It is further stated that during the year 1969 the marriage between the appellant and Chinnappa was dissolved under mutual consent and entered into a registered agreement dated 10-3-69. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 ceased to be the wif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »