Karnataka Court January 1997 Judgments

Rahamat Be (Smt.) Vs. Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commission ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. 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 n...

C.R. Sathisha Vs. Muniswamy and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999ACJ822; AIR1997Kant358; ILR1997KAR2546; 1997(3)KarLJ550

1. This appeal under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises from the judgment and award dated 19-7-1991, given by the District Judge and Member of the Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sri Mohamed Anwar), Chikmagalur, in M.V.C. Case No. 122/1989, dismissing the claim petition of the present appellant, on the ground that the claim petition at the instance of the claimant-petitioner, that is present appellant was not maintainable as the autorickshaw which had been damaged in the accident was not registered in the name of the claimant and claimant had no registration certificate in his favour irrespective of the fact that the evidence furnished in the case undisputedly exhibited that the autorickshaw was purchased by the claimant for a sum of Rs. 31,000/-.2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 7th February, 1989, at about 6.45 p.m, autorickshaw bearing No. MEC 4154, driven by one Arun Kumar, met the accident near Shankar Saw Mill on Chikamagalur to Kadur Road, in the Chikmagalur City....

Smt. Vasanthi Devi Vs. Vijaya Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch, Mangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR738; 1997(2)KarLJ331; (1997)IILLJ1004Kant

ORDER1. Heard. 2. This is judgment-debtor's revision directed against the order dated December 22, 1990 Of the Executing Court passed in Execution Case No. 489 of 1989 on its file ordering is sue of warrant attaching the sum of Rs. 300/- per month out of the pension amount payable to petitioner, towards realisation of the money decree which was obtained by the respondent decree-holder against petitioner and which was put in execution in the said Execution Case 101 No. 489 of 1989. 3. The inurned order came to be passed by the Court below rejecting the petitioner's objection raised before it, who was respondent in 5 Execution Case No. 489 of 1989, that by reason of Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 (the 'Act' for short) the said pension amount was not liable to attachment in law. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioner, reiterating the said objection, contended that the impugned order of the Executing Court is vitiated gy patent illegality, in that, it is passed in contravention of Sec...

C.R. Satisha Vs. Muniswamy and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1(1998)ACC546

Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises from the Judgment and Award dated 19.7.1991, given by the District Judge and Member of the Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sri Mohammed Anwar), Chikmagalur, in M.V.C. Case No. 122/1989, dismissing the claim petition of the present appellant, on the ground that the claim petition at the instance of the claimant petitioner, that is present appellant was not maintainable as the Autorickshaw which had been damaged in the accident was not registered in the name of the claimant and claimant had no registration certificate in his favour irrespective of the fact that the evidence furnished in the case undisputedly exhibited that the Autorickshaw was purchased by the claimant for a sum of Rs. 31,000/-.2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 7th February, 1989, at about 6.45 P.M., Autorickshaw bearing No. MEC 4154, driven by one Arun Kumar, met with an accident near Shankar Saw Mill on Chikmagalur to Kadur...