Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant172; 1997(2)KarLJ337
ORDER1. This writ petition calls in question an order dated 2nd of December, 1996 passed by the respondent-Director of Pre-University Education, annulling the II PUC Examination taken by the petitioner and debarring him from appearing in two examinations due to be held in April and October, 1997.2. The petitioner appeared in the II PUC Examination conducted by the Department of Pre-University Educaiion, results whereof were announced on the 1st of June, 1996. A statement of marks issued in his favour showed that the petitioner had secured 51 marks in Chemistry and 54 marks in Mathematics out of a total of 100 in each one of those subjects. Dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him, the petitioner made an application on 3-10-1996 for re-totalling. The request for rebottling to appears did not evoke any response from the Board, with the result (hat the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 27722/96 for a Mandamus directing the Board to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC144; 1999ACJ841; 1997(3)KarLJ412
1. This appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, filed by employer challenging the award dated April 30, 1992 in W.C. Case No. 103 of 1991 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 63,994/- minus the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which has already been paid by the employer to the deceased employee. The facts of the case in brief are that one Mehaboob Basha who was a carpenter with the appellant suffered injuries on July 30, 1988 in the accident, as a result of short circuit in the factory and died on August 5, 1988. The undisputed fact is that the appellant paid some amount as compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the father and dependent of the deceased employee Mehboob Basha. On December 7, 1991, 1st respondent who is the father of the deceased Mehboob Basha-employee, filed a claim petition under Sections 3 and 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming compensation. That along with the application for claiming compensation the claimant filed application for co...
Tag this Judgment!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 ...
Tag this Judgment!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 ...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!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 ...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!