Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC660; 1998ACJ836; 1998(4)KarLJ95
1. This appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The facts of the case in brief are the appellant had filed claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The claimant-applicant had been the cleaner with respondent 1 in the appeal. According to the claimant's case on 22-5-1991 when claimant was discharging his job as coolie-cum-cleaner in vehicle No. MEH 4302 of respondent 1, in course of his duty and service the accident did take place in village Janapalaiah, P.B. Road, N.H. No. 4, Tumkur District and in that accident the claimant sustained injuries. That in course of his employment and while discharging his duties as a cleaner, the injuries that the claimant has sustained have been fracture of left leg palm and certain other injuries in waist and in stomach. The claimant has asserted that he was getting in total a sum of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. as wages, Rs. 1,500/- as the fixed wages and Rs. 500/- as bat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1965; 1997(3)KarLJ525
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The petitioner is a registered consumer of the Karnataka Electricity Board. Its electrical installation bears RR No. CP 1047/ CP3/211. The said installation was inspected on 7.12.1989 by the Technical Audit Cell staff of KEB in presence of the Factory Manager Sri Ramarao. During inspection, it revealed that the main cover seal of the meter was fake and sealing wire was found tampered with thereby providing an easy access to registering mechanism of the meter. The Inspecting Team drew a Mahazar in presence of the said Factory Manager. Subsequently, a back bill of Rs. 7,41,524/-was raised against the petitioner under Annexure-A.2. The said bill was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No. 23352/89 which suffered an adverse order. Then the matter was taken in appeal in Writ Appeal No. 3729/93. A Bench of this Court after hearing a batch of writ appeals involving identical questions inter alia quashed the back bill annexure-A by settling ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant167; ILR1997KAR3302
1. This case was referred to the Full Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court to re-consider the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Kasturiranga Iyengar v Town Municipal Council, Hassan, in view of the Amendment to Section 94, sub-clause (viii) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act by Section 5 of the Karnataka Municipalities Amendment Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The question involved in this appeal is as to whether a Municipality, for water supplied by them, is competent to levy, on an individual, water-rate or water-rates in the form of tax assessed on buildings and lands and also to charge him for such supply of water according to the quantity used or according to the terms agreed with him or them. The Full Bench referred to above, held in the light of Section 94, as it stood at that time, that, it is not competent for any authority to impose both water-rate in the form of tax as also to charge them for such supply of water according to the quanti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1753; 1998(1)KarLJ142
ORDER1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question for decision of the Full Bench:-'Whether the conditions prescribed for grant of lands under Rule 43-G of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 are applicable to grant of lands under Rule 43-J of the Rules? 2. The facts of these cases are briefly as under:-- Portions of Sy. No. 160 of Menasikyathanahalli village and Sy. No. 96 of Heggur village of T. Narasipur Taluk, Mysore District, were temporarily leased to certain persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes before the commencement of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. Subsequently, those lands were granted to the respective lessees or their legal heirs under Rule 43-J of the said rules at a price of Rs. 500/- per acre. By Official Memorandum dated 7/12-3-1968, the Assistant Commissioner, T. Narasipur Division, confirmed the grants in favour of the occupants, subject to payment of Rs. 500/- per acre and requested the Tahsildar to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant280; [1998]94CompCas1(Kar); ILR1997KAR1165; 1997(3)KarLJ1
ORDERPatri Basavana Goud, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 M/s. Shivmoni Steel Tubes Limited became a sick unit, and efforts for rehabilitation of the said sick unit not having met with any success in spile of reference to Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' for short), & Respondent No. 3 Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India ('ICICI' for short) having been appointed as operating agency, Company Petition No. 157 of 1992 was registered for winding up the company on an order in that regard being passed by BIFR. An appeal to the appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR, for short) as against the said order of the BIFR also came to be dismissed, and when the said order of AAIFR was communicated to the Court, Company Petition No. 49 of 1994 was registered. Both the company Petitions were clubbed together and notices issued. 2. Among others, the secured creditors of the Company under liquidation are the present appellant M/s. Karnatak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(58)ECC26; 1998(98)ELT334(Kar); ILR1997KAR1301; 1997(3)KarLJ601
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The petitioner is a Public Sector undertaking jointly owned by the Government of India, Government of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner is engaged in the fabrication of hydraulic gates of different types and dimensions, hoists and Gantry Cranes for such gates, penstock pipes, Rubber seals etc., for river valley projects, Transmission Line Towers and sub-station structurals for power projects, EOT Cranes, building structurals and bridge structurals. The petitioner undertakes contracts from Government Departments and various Electricity Boards throughout India. Most of the contracts are in the nature of turn-key projects/jobs. All its products are fabricated, according to the petitioner, out of duty paid raw materials and components either purchased from the market or supplied by its customers. As primarily a contracting Company, the petitioner undertakes turn-key projects on contract basis all over the country. The petitioner's customers are most...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3045
ORDER1. The instant appeal is preferred by the State to challenge the judgment dated 19-12-1991 in CC No. 3069 of 1988 passed by the I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, whereby he had acquitted the respondent. 2. This Court had appointed one Sri A. S. Bellary, learned Advocate as Amicus Curiae to represent the respondent in the above appeal as he had remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. 3. I heard the learned Government Pleader, Sri G. M. Sreenivasa Reddy appearing for the appellant-State and Sri A. S. Bellary, Advocate/Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent. 4. The facts in brief of the case are as follows : That on 25-12-1986 at about 6-40 p.m. the respondent being the driver of military truck bearing Registration No. 84D 55011 N driven the same after consuming alcohol and while he was driving on the road near Jayamahal Extention leading to M. R. Palya, he dashed against a Suvega bearing Registration No. MEA 6842 from behind and as a result of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant370; 1997(4)KarLJ95
1. This appeal is filed by the defendant to challenge the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 5014/86 on the tile of the Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH No. 5), Bangalore city, whereby the said City Civil Judge decreed the suit of the respondents for partition and separate possession and further for mesne profits.2. When the appeal was pending before this Court, one Mahendramma alias Indira, the daughter of the appellant herein had also resorted to an I.A. under Order I, Rule 10(2) of CPC for a direction to respondents to implead her as a parly to the suit. The said I. A. is numbered as LA. No. VI in the appeal. Hence, 1 heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri. S.K. V.Chalapgty, Sri. V. Tarakaram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Impleading Applicant, the above said Mahendramma alias Indira and Sri: P,D. Surana, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.3. The case in brief is as follows:That the respondents had resorted to the suit in O.S. No. 5014/86 on the file o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998ACJ1404; ILR1997KAR2697
Harinath Tilhari, J.1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company from award dated 9.3.1994 given by the II Addl. District Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mysore in MVC. No. 576/1992.The sole question agitated in this case is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation awarded to one who is travelling in a private car. Whether Insurance Co., is liable to pay compensation for injury or death of such person in motor accident. The facts of the case in brief are that on 10.5.1992 one Abdul Rehman along with members of his family and relatives was travelling in an Ambassador car bearing No. KA-91-M-3200 from Karur to Bangalore via Virajpet and on account of rash and negligent driving of the said car by the first respondent in MVC. Case No. 576/92 the accident did take place at 3 AM near Panchavati on B.M. road and in that accident, the claimant husband Abdul Rehman died on the spot and several other persons were injured. The claimant/ respondent-1 preferred a claim peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. Each of these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises the same question. Since the facts, issues and questions of law raised are identical, these petitions are clubhed, heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. The reliefs sought in these petitions are mainly for a declaration to declare that Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board is a local area and the entry of scheduled goods into that area would not attract charging provisions under Entry Tax Act, since the Karnataka Ordinance No. 2 of 1992 which came into effect from 1-5-1992 having lapsed by efflux of time, the notifications issued pursuant to Section 3(1) of the Act to effectuate the charge with respect to items coming under First Schedule to the Act having become inoperative, the notifications have been rendered redundant and nun-operative, thatthe notification dated 30-7-1992 inserting Entry 81 which brought to effectuate the charge relating to Entry 80 of the First Schedule to the Act is...
Tag this Judgment!