Karnataka Court January 1997 Judgments

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T. Sharanappa and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999ACJ502; 1997(3)KarLJ240

Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. Sowri Raju and Mr. K. Suryanarayana Rao for respondent No. 1, that is, the injured as well as Mr. S.V. Prakash, counsel for the owner of the moped, respondent No. 2.2. The only question that has been raised before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the context of the facts of the case is to the effect that the learned Tribunal committed error of law as well as error of fact in holding that the insurance company, that is, the appellant, that is, respondent No. 2 in the claim petition; has failed to make out a case under Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) and as such, there is the liability of insurance company to pay the compensation money to the claimant-respondent No. 1 in the appeal?3. The learned Counsel has submitted that the above finding is based on non-application of the mind to the facts that the owner of the vehicle did not appear in the witness-box as well as he failed to produce the licence. The lea...

Workmen of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Ban ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. The petitioners herein impugnes Annexure-A Notification issued by the State Government exempting the 2nd respondent from the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act by invoking its power under Section 36-B of the I.D. Act.2. I have heard Mr. N.G. Phadke, learned Counsel for the petitioners as also Mr. Gururajan. As the management has no objection in petitioners seeking adjudicating their rights before an appropriate Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court if and when the dispute is raised with reference to the termination of the services of the worker and it is submitted by Mr. Gururajan, the learned Counsel for the employer that they will not seek protection of the notification issued under Section 36-B of the I.D. Act, the validity or otherwise of the notification need not be gone into in these proceedings. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed....

Nagaraja Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR36; 1997(3)KarLJ441

M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a conviction recorded against the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Sessions Case No. 140/92. It is alleged that the appellant who is technically the nephew-in-law of the deceased Pavithra, had stabbed her to death at about 4 p.m. on12.2.1992 at Nehru Cross Road. The background of the incident emanates from an altercation which took place between the two some time before the incident on the same afternoon. The deceased Pavithra who was accompanied by P.W.3 is alleged to have uttered extremely abusive and offensive words inter alia to the effect that the accused was imputing immoral conduct to her and that he would not like it if similar allegations were made against his wife styling her as prostitute and the deceased is also alleged to have even imputed impotency to the accused. The two ladies thereafter went to the house of P.W.4 and while they were returning, the accused is ...

Smt. Venkatamma Vs. Surendrappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999ACJ126; ILR1997KAR2420; 1997(3)KarLJ476

Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri G. Krishnamurthy and Sri H.G. Ramesh learned Counsel for the Insurance Company - Respondent No. 3 None appears for respondents 1 and 2.2. This appeal arises from M.V.C.No. 191/1987, decided by the Principal District Judge and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolar, allowing the claim of the claimant for compensation in part. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,000/- in total, as also interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.3. The only point in dispute that has been raised is the quantum of compensation. The claimant-appellant is dissatisfied with the amount so awarded. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded is inadequate and it requires enhancement.4. To complete the facts, it will be proper to mention it that on 11.6.87, the lorry belonging to respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1, which lorry did bear Registration No. MYA...

Mundlur Narayana Rao @ Chitti Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR3078; 1997(3)KarLJ222

ORDERM.B. Vishwanath, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against whom a show cause notice under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bellary, to take action against the revision petitioner under Section 55 of the K.P.Act.3. Section 55 of the K.P.Act contemplates removal of a person about to commit an offence. The show cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (present respondent) to the revision petitioner says that he was satisfied on credible material placed before him that the movements and acts of the revision petitioner were alarming, dangerous and fraught with violence. That order has been passed on 16.4.1994.4. I have carefully gone through the show cause notice issued under Section 58 of the K.P.Act against the revision petitioner with a view to taking action against him under Section 55 of ...

Smt. Rahamat Be Vs. Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1201

ORDER1. The husband of the petitioner herein late Abdul Sattar was employed by the K.S.R.T.C. He joined service on 6-7-1962. With effect from 1-3-1971 the Employees' Provident Fund Pension Scheme was made applicable to the Corporation as well. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had joined this Scheme and deduction from his salary were being made for the purpose of contribution to the Fund ever since September, 1971. Her husband died on 4-7-1973. It is seen that in 1995 the petitioner applied to the first respondent to settle the family pension due to the family of the deceased Abdul Sattar. By Annexure-C order the same was rejected with the following endorsement:'14-A. The claimant is not eligible to monthly pension since the deceased member has not completed the qualifying service (Minimum reckonable service of two years)'.She repeated another representation Annexure-D followed with a representation Annexure-E to the employer of her late husband namely the K.S.R.T.C. Fi...

Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai and Sons, Mangalore Vs. Employees' State Ins ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR697; 1997(4)KarLJ31

ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition relates to Annexure-A, order made by the respondent under Section 45A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It was assigned E.S.I. Code 53-4084-09. This establishment is covered under the Act since from 21-1-1962. It is alleged that they are maintaining all records as contemplated under the Act and they are making contribution due from them in accordance with their record. The allegation is that the department has been harassing the petitioner for imaginary dues and has prosecuted them thrice. Several inspections have been held, but at no time any laches were detected. Ultimately, a proceeding was initiated to determine the quantum of contribution payable and Annexure-A order was issued determining the quantum as Rs. 4,59,767/- payable by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this order is illegal and void for the following reasons : (i) the authority lacks jurisdiction; (ii) while making ...

Basavarajappa Appa Vs. Associated Business Corporation

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(2)KarLJ459

S. Venkataraman, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the landlord/petitioner against the order of the Learned District Judge, Gulbarga, rejecting his claim under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.2. The petitioner's claim fro eviction of the respondent under Section 21(1)(a)(b)(i) of the Rent Control Act had been allowed by the Trial Court but that order came to be set aside by the learned District Judge in a Revision Petition filed by the tenant. Against that order by the Learned District Judge, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Court and this Court had remitted the matter back to the Learned District Judge to consider the claim of the landlord under Section 21(1) (p) of the Act after giving an opportunity to the respondent/tenant to file objections to that claim and recording further evidence if any. The Learned District Judge after permitting the respondent to file objections recorded additional evidence in respect of the claim under Section 21...

State by Thilak Park Police Vs. Sujatha and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1693

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. As far as the Office objections are concerned, in view of the Affidavit, the delay is condoned. I.A.I is allowed.2. However, on merits, we have heard the learned S.P.P. whose only submission was the Trial Court ought to have ensured the presence of the witnesses which does not seem to have been done. From the record, we are unable to conclude that the non-appearance of the witnesses was due to any fault on the part of the prosecution. We however need to observe that this Court has come across many instances where the witnesses do not appear and on investigation, the reason that emerges is that the witnesses were unaware of the fact that their presence was required before the Court. In all such cases, it has unfortunately been revealed that the concerned authorities namely the Police have not served the summon on the witnesses for reasons that are more than obvious to us. The non-appearance of the witnesses undoubtedly results in the failure of the prosecution a...

Rehamat Be (Smt.) Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another

Court: Karnataka

1. The husband of the petitioner herein late Abdul Sattar was employed by the K.S.R.T.C. He joined service on July 6, 1962. With effect from March 1, 1971 the Employees' Provident Fund Pension Scheme was made applicable to the Corporation as well. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had joined this scheme and deductions from his salary were being made for the purpose of contribution to the Fund ever since September, 1971. Her husband died on July 4, 1973. It is seen that in 1995 the petitioner applied to the first respondent to settle the family pension due to the family of the deceased Abdul Sattar. By Annexure-C order the same was rejected with the following endorsement. '14-A. The claimant is not eligible to monthly pension since the deceased member has not completed the qualifying service (Minimum reckonable service of two years.)' 2. She repeated another representation Annexure-D followed with a representation Annexure-E to the employer of her late husband, namely th...