Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC469; 1998ACJ701; 1998(6)KarLJ552
Acts/Rules/Orders:Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 2(30), 124, 129 and 200;Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 - Rule 3(3);Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1950;General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 6JUDGEMENT1. This is an appeal from the order of the Railway Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in T.A. No. 389 of 1990, whereby, the Tribunal has disposed of the appellant's application for claim under Railway Accidents Claims Tribunal Act.The claim was originally filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal and thereafter, was transferred to the Bangalore Bench.2. The claimant in this claim petition has alleged that he was a bona fide passenger in Karnataka Express which was involved in accident at Lalithpur on 18-4-1989, and that he had sustained injuries as a result of the accident. He made a claim to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- for injuries and Rs. 500/- for loss of articles.The claim petition has been contested on the ground that the quantum of compen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC542; ILR1997KAR3045
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order granting the Temporary Permit vide order dated 2/3.12.1996 copy of which has been annexed at Annexure 'D' to the Writ Petition whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to grant the Temporary Permit under Section 87(1)(c) and (d) for a period of four months from the date of grant of permit.2. Learned counsel points out that the permit which has been granted is to be operative upto 31.3.1997. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M.R. Venkatnarasimhachar assisted by Sri A.S.P. Kumar for the petitioner as well as Sri A.S. Viswanath for the Respondent No. 2 and Sri Shivayogiswamy Learned Government Pleader. It has been contended before me by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this permit which has been granted in favour of Respondent No. 2, is illegal and one granted in exercise of jurisdiction not vested. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that no Temporar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ56; ILR1997KAR1011
M.B. Vishwanath, J1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant and the Learned Counsel for the respondent-K.S.R.T.C.2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in M.V.C.No.92/82. The Tribunal awarded the claimant a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The appellant had claimed Rs. 75,000/- as compensation.3. There were two claim petitions M.V.C.92/82 (which has given rise to the present appeal) and M.V.C. 90/82 in respect of the accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation in M.V.C. 90/82.4. The accident in question happened this way:On 14.10.1981 at about 11.30 a.m. the appellant-claimant and his father (claimant in M.V.C.No.90/82) were travelling in an autorickshaw bearing No. MYG 6476. The auto-rickshaw was going towards Belthangady side. At that time near Church road, the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. MYF 7494 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(4)KarLJ596; (1998)ILLJ68Kant
ORDER1. In all these Criminal Petitions the only question raised by the petitioner is that in view of the common cause judgment in 'Common Cause' a Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India and Others AIR 1996 SC 1619 the proceedings before the lower Court are to be quashed. 2. In all these petitions the respondent-Enforcement Officer of Employees' Provident Funds, Mangalore Division filed complaints against the petitioner for offence under Section 14(1-A) of Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. It is stated that those proceedings have been pending since 1988, and in view of the above mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court the petitioner in these cases are liable to be acquitted. In 'Common Cause', a Registered society v. Union of India and Others : AIR1997SC1886 the Supreme Court in para 4 of the judgment has given directions not to apply the principles laid down in the judgment to the cases referred in the said para. Para 4 reads as follows :- '4. Directions (1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2595
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to reverse and set aside the order dated 5-7-1996 passed by the learned Magistrate referring the complaint presented by the first respondent in this petition to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., and to quash the First Information Report submitted by the Police in Crime No. 341/96 registered by the High Grounds Police against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 418 and 420, IPC. and to quash all subsequent proceedings in PCR No. 446/96 pending on the file of the learned VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 2. The Respondent No. 1 herein filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, here in after called the Code, alleging offences punishable under Sections 418 & 420, IPC. The gist of the complaint is as follows : That complainant is a proprietary concern doing business in Silk finished produc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1707; ILR1997KAR2091; 1997(4)KarLJ150
ORDER1. The learned single Judge of this Court has referred a group of Criminal Petitions filed under section 482, Cr.P.C. to the Division Bench for resolution of a point of procedure which is of some consequence. Though, as we shall presently point out, the consensus in a whole string of earlier decisions has been in favour of the view that the participation of the complainant's Advocate at the stage when the verification statement is being taken down by the presiding Magistrate while scrutinising a private complaint is not permissible, there has been some difference of opinion in this regard particularly on the question as to whether the deviation from this procedure would result in an illegality or whether it is a curable irregularity. Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. underwent drastic amendments when the new criminal Procedure Code came on the statute book in 1973. The section as it now appears in the Cr.P.C. is reproduced below for ready reference : '200. Examination of complainant :- A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1998)ACC657; ILR1997KAR3167
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13.2.1997 passed by Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore reviewing and modifying the timings and their assignment. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the authority has modified the order, without complying with the requirements of provisions of law as contained in Section 72(2) (XXII) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 without giving any notice to the petitioner. He has further contended that no power of review did vest in the authority. On behalf of the respondents this submission has not been disputed that the modification or variation of timings has been done without any notice to the petitioner. A perusal of the order particularly, the later part is material also to be quoted :TIMINGS MODIFIED AND ASSIGNEDBangalore D. 7-10 am A. 1.30 p.m.Nelamangala A. 8-55 am D.12.15 pmD. 9-00 amS. Temple A. 9-25 am D. 11.15 amD. 9-30 am A. 11.10 amDodballa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1419
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioners in these cases are owners of lands situate in Bangalore South Taluk. The Bangalore Development Authority (for short, Authority) formulated a scheme for improvement under Section 15 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the BDA Act) for formation of a residential lay-out known as 'JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN NAGAR' 9th stage lay-out. A notification was issued on 17.11.1988 proposing a scheme for the said purpose. In the said notification, several lands including that of the petitioners were notified for acquisition. Thereafter, individual notices were issued to them as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act. The petitioners filed detailed objections thereto. A notification was thereafter issued on 22.7.1991 under Section 19(1) of the B.D.A. Act declaring the lands mentioned in the schedule thereto are needed for public purpose for formation of a lay-out referred to earlier. The lands of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-3-1997, whereby the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Mandya has refused to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of special permit under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that he has not received any instruction from the Government as also the rules framed thereunder. The order reads as under: 'With reference to the above subject, the applicant is informed that his application for consideration ,of the issue of special permit under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for vehicle No. KA-11-1991 Stage Carriage cannot be considered, since he has not received instructions from the Government and also the rules framed thereunder. Under these circumstances your application cannot be considered'.2. This order per se appears to be nothing but refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the authority on the misconception of facts. In Vijaya N. Rai v State of Karnata...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR941; 1997(3)KarLJ19
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The writ Appellant is the Management. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge who quashed the Award of the Labour Court, and remitted back the matter to the Labour Court, the Management is before this Court. 2. A few facts leading to the filing of the Writ appeals are as follows :- One Sri P. V. Naik was working as a skilled plate maker in the Appellant Company, which was engaged in printing and publishing a Kannada Weekly newspaper by name Prajamata. The said workman against whom certain misconduct was levelled was suspended on April 19, 1996. The complaint was that the workman failed to supply the plates required by the printing section for printing the wrapper of 'Prajamata' to be published on May 23, 1976 and May 30, 1976. Despite instructions given to make the plates in time, the workman deliberately failed to get ready the plates. Therefore on the ground of act of wilful insubordination and disobedience which was construed as misconduct under t...
Tag this Judgment!