Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ165; 1997(3)KarLJ216
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal is filed by the injured from the judgment and award dated 1.4.1991 in M.V.C. No. 363 of 1987. The Tribunal has in total awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000 as compensation to the claimant-appellant, the details of which are as under:(a) Rs. 20,000 towards pecuniary loss, pain and suffering and loss of amenities, enjoyment of life and temporary disability.(b) Rs. 2,000 for medical and other expenses.(c) Rs. 1,000 for engaging motor car to Puttur. Thus in total compensation of Rs. 23,000 has been awarded as mentioned above by the Tribunal.2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant on 12.5.1987 was going on cycle and he was on the left side of the road. According to the claimant's case a tractor bearing No. MYH 7345 and trailer bearing No. 7346 being driven by its driver, i.e., respondent No. 1, was coming in a rash and negligent manner from cross road from the left side and dashed against the petitioner who was cycling on the left side of the road. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ388
ORDER1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Notification No. FD 10 PHS 95(II), dated 31-5-1995 (Annexure-D) issued by the State Government under Section 71(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'), whereby by amending Rule 7 of the Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1968 (in short 'the Rules'), it has enhanced the licence fee and has also inserted a new Rule 7-A prescribing an additional licence fee.2. The petitioners herein are all distillers. They have obtained licences under the provisions of the Rules. They broadly fall in the following three categories, namely.--'(i) Distillers manufacturing both non-potable spirits, as well as, Indian liquor;(ii) Distillers engaged in manufacturing of Indian liquoronly; and(iii) Distillers manufacturing only non-potable spirits'.3. Rule 7(1) of the Rules, before its substitution by the impugned notification dated 31-5-1995 (Annexure-D) read as under:--'7. Licence fe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR956
ORDERG.P. Shivaprakash, J1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. As stated in the petition, it is owning urban property bearing MCC No. 2938 L 31 & 32 situated on Bangalore - Nilgiri Road. The said property was notified for acquisition under the preliminary notification in terms of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said notification is dated 24.1.1989 gazetted on 13.4.1989. After holding of enquiry in terms of Section 5A of the Act, the declaration dated 21.6.1990 under Section 6(1) of the Act was made, and was gazetted on 5.7.1990. Copy of the preliminary notification is marked as Annexure-B and copy of the final notification is marked as Annexure-F.2. The petitioner-firm had questioned the legality and validity of the preliminary notification in W.P.No. 361/90. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 18.9.1996 as withdrawn 'reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition.'3. Sri K. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner formulated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant355; 1997(3)KarLJ180
ORDER1. In the present case, the petitioner has questioned the constitutional validity of Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 thereinafter in short 'Rules'), which had been inserted by Karnataka Minor Minerals, Concession (Amendment) Rules, l995, with effect from 6-5-1995. The petitioner has been impelled to challenge the said rule because of Ihe rejection of his application dated 14-12-1994 for grant of stone quarrying lease by the 3rd rcspondent-Sr. Geologist under his notification dated23-8-1996 on the ground that the application was not maintainable because of the provisions contained in impugned rule.2. Admittedly, on 14-12-1994 the petitioner had made an application to the 3rd respondent-Sr. Geologist for grant of a quarrying lease over an extent of 1 acre 60 guntas in Sy. No. 50 or Kannur village. Bidarahally Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. But the said application came io be rejected by the 3rd respondent under notification Ann. 'B', as stated above.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(3)KarLJ262; (1999)ILLJ557Kant
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This petition stands referred to a Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a Corporation engaged in the promotion, growth and development of handloom industry as one of its activities. It claims that it extends organisational support to weavers, who are outside the co-operative fold and to prevent exploitation of such unorganised weavers at the hands of Master Weavers. The Corporation also provides financial assistance to the handloom industry and is engaged in allied incidental activities. It is stated that in order to achieve the main objectives of the Corporation several schemes have been formulated and under their scheme the weavers are provided with 100% raw material and marketing assistance besides infrastructural facilities to enable them to carry on weaving activity uninterruptedly and they are paid remunerative charges for the products woven by them. The Corporation provides f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1482; 1997(2)KarLJ490
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.1996 passed by the respondent-Commissioner and Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore, as the appellate authority under Clause 17(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'PDS Control Order') whereunder she has directed the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to consider the rival claims of the petitioner and the fourth respondent seeking authorisation in terms of the PDS Control Order for running fair price depot.2. It appears that, in terms of the Control Order, applications were invited for grant of authorisation for running a fair price depot at Kemparayanahalli village. In pursuance thereof, the present petitioner and the fourth respondent had fifed their applications. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner, after considering the eligibility of the said applicants, granted authorisation in favour of the petitioner. The sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2(1997)ACC44
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KLI5850. The vehicle was registered on 15.5.1989. As per the then existing rules, the registered owner of the vehicle was bound to maintain only 45 seats in the vehicle being the minimum prescribed under the Rules. The registered owner applied to the authorities for increasing the seats and the seats were increased to 50 and the registered owner has been operating the vehicle till now. The registered owner thereafter filed an application under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for alteration of the vehicle. It was contended that Rule 269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (for short 'the Rules') which prescribes the minimum seating capacity of a stage carriage was not applicable to the vehicles in view of Rule 269(4) of the Rules. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to operate the vehicle with 43 seats. The second respondent rejected the application s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant288
ORDER1. This is a public interest litigation. The petitioner Organisations claim to be working for the welfare of the tribals and are interested in ensuring the maintenance of ecological balance in Nagarahole National Park, which according to them, is essential to be maintained for the environmental reasons as also to protect the interests of the tribals residing in and nearby areas of the National Park.2. In the present writ petition, the petitionershave challenged the legality and propriety ofcreating tease hold rights in certain propertiessituated in the midst of the Nagarahole NationalPark, under the lease deed dated 25-6-1994 (Annexure 'F), by the Government of Karnataka in favour of the 5th respondent, namely, M/s.Gateway Hotels and Gateway Resorts Limited, a private company forerunning its business ofboarding, lodging and restaurant, for a period of18 years.3. The legality of the impugned grant of lease hold rights has been assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2244; 1997(3)KarLJ199
ORDER1. I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. The petitioner's learned advocate is perhaps justified to some extent about his grievance because he states that the proceeding was between the respondent Board and the original accused and pursuant to the accused pointing out to the Court that the present petitioners' are in fact the lessees of the unit, the Court has added them as the accused. The scope of S. 319 will have to be looked into from the spirit of the enactment which empowers a Court to add on a party as the accused at any stage of the trial if it appears that prima facie, there is material to hold that such inclusion is necessary. In this case, the original accused-Society pointed out that the unit is being run by the present petitioners and since the offence alleged was in relation to the discharge of effluent from the unit, the Court was fully justified in adding on the company which is in fact running the unit.2. The petitioners' learned advocate submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1058; 1997(3)KarLJ80
ORDERG.P. Shivaprakash, J. 1. The lands of the petitioners situated in Siddanayakanahalli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore District, were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of construction of 220 KV Station for Karnataka Electricity Board pursuant to the notification dated 18.10.1994. Thereafter, an award dated 6.4.1995 has been passed as could be seen from copy of the notice dated 7.4.1995, marked as Annexure-B. According to the petitioners, the said notice was received by them in the second week of April, 1995.2. It appears on 1.7.1995 the petitioners submitted written applications to the third respondent in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act requiring him to make reference to the Civil Court for determination of the amount of compensation. The third respondent by his endorsement dated 17.8.1995, copy of which is marked as Annexure-E has declined to consider their applications on the ground that they were n...
Tag this Judgment!