Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC7; 1999ACJ1569
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the owner of the motor vehicle, i.e., the insured from the judgment and award dated 11.11.1993 in M.V.C. Case No. 1019 of 1989 which M.V.C. case had been decided along with other M.V.C. cases arising from one and same accident. The Tribunal in its award has ordered that M.V.C. Case No. 1019 of 1989 is allowed awarding compensation of Rs. 1,47,000 only with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and has directed the respondent No. 1 National Insurance Co. Ltd. to deposit Rs. 10,000 with proportionate interest and respondent No. 2 C.K. Seetharam, owner of the lorry, to deposit Rs. 1,37,000 with proportionate interest and proportionate cost.2. According to the averments made in the claim petition on 10.7.1989 deceased Gangasundar at 7.00 a.m. was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No. CRT 8200. That lorry according to the claimant's case was driven in a rash and negligent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ385Kant
1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15388 of 1994. That petition came to be filed by the 1st respondent herein challenging an award made by the Labour Court in a reference made to it. The appellant before us is a Conductor in the establishment of the 1st respondent-Corporation. Certain charges were framed against him as under : '1. That on February 14, 1986, you were conducting a passenger bus bearing No. MEF-919 on route Cannanore to Bangalore. The said bus was subjected to check by Sriyuths :- H. P. Ramchandra, B. T. Nagaraj, Traffic Inspectors and B. T. Krishnamurthy A.T.I. at Virajpet Bus Stand. When the abovesaid checking official tried to board the bus in order to check the ticketless passengers you have not opened the Conductor's door to discharge their duties besides obstructing them from discharging their duties. Taking advantages of it, you have made attempts to issue tickets to the ticketless passengers, on sighting the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ27
1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code from the judgment and award dated 21-4-1993 delivered by the I Additional District Judge, Belgaum (Sri S.M. Bagali) on an application for review dated 15-4-1993 in L.A. Appeal No. 56 of 1989, whereby the learned District Judge has allowed the said review application in the appeal and relief of 12% additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was granted in the two appeals, namely Appeal Nos. 56 of 1989 and 322 of 1989 was deleted from the common judgment and decree dated 13-4-1993 passed in those two appeals.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the,Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land belonging to the appellants herein along with other lands and passed an award on 6-2-1979. Thereafter, a reference in L.A.C. No. 161 of 1979 came up before the Principal Civil Judge, at the instance of the owners of the land. The Civil Judge by his judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(3)KarLJ618
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner herein impugns Annexure-B and C-proceedings of the respondent. Annexure-B is the order passed by the respondent after enquiry under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Annexure-C is the consequential notice issued. The contention of the petitioner is that the period of infancy available to the petitioner is to be reckoned from the date of manufacture i.e, June 30, 1992 and not July 18, 1991 as now assigned. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : The petitioner-establishment, according to the petitioner was established to manufacture plywood and other articles. The factory, according to the petitioner, comes within the ambit of Section 1(3)(a) of the Act. It is not a commercial establishment which is coverable under Section 1(3)(b). The respondent herein initiated proceedings for coverage under the Act reckoning the alleged sale took place on Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC778; 1998ACJ1333
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal is by the insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 3.5.1993 delivered by Mr. Shankar Murgad, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I (the District Judge), Raichur, in M.V.C. No. 253 of 1992 awarding as total compensation a sum of Rs. 35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation to the claimants/respondents fastening the liability jointly and severally on the insurance company, the owner and driver of the vehicle and directed them to pay the compensation within two months.2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 27.6.1992 at about 7.00 p.m. the accident in question took place near Lakkamadinni Indira Nagar on Manvi-Sirwar road on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. CNP 3777 by its driver, the respondent No. 1, as a result of which the claimant's son Shivappa died. The Tribunal held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Counsel for contesting respondent 1 and the learned Government Pleader for respondent 2. 2. In this revision petition, the order dated 18-7-1995 passed by C.J.M., Shimoga, in C.C. No. 61 of 1992 has been challenged. 3. By the impugned order, the C.J.M., quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 61 of 1992 pending on his file. 4. The revision petitioner was the complainant in C.C. No. 61 of 1992. The present respondent 1 Kannan was the accused in that case. 5. The present revision petitioner-complainant filed P.C.R. No. 37 of 1987 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Sagar. The J.M.F.C. referred the complaint under Section 156(3), Cr. P.O., to the police for investigation and report. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet in C.C. No. 995 of 1988 for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471, IPC. 6. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the accused (present respondent 1). The presen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ75
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision arrived at on 8-3-1995 at the meeting of Divisional Controller, Hassan District, Hassan, District Superintendent of Police, Hassan, Divisional Traffic Officer, Hassan Division, Hassan in presence of All India Tourist Omni Bus Owners and communicated to the petitioner vide annexure-A and B dated 8-3-1995 and 20-3-1995 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also challenged the notifications dated 6-3-1994 and 28-3-1994 copies of which have been annexed as annexure-C and D to the writ petition.2. Petitioner is the holder of All India Tourist Vehicles Permit issued by Karnataka State Transport Authority enabling the petitioner to ply the Tourist Bus all over India subject to the conditions viz, in Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the additional conditions prescribed under Rule 85 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. According to the petitioner one of the conditions is that the Tourist Vehicle shall not be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(Kar)474; [1997]227ITR421(KAR); [1997]227ITR421(Karn)
S. Venkataraman, J.1. The question involved in these petitions is as to whether a dissolved firm can be assessed to agricultural income-tax after the date of its dissolution in respect of the dividends received from the Coffee Board for the supply of coffee seeds made by the firm prior to its dissolution. 2. The facts of the cases may briefly be referred to before considering the above question. In WP Nos. 2397 and 2398 of 1988 the firm, Shigode Plantations, was a registered firm and that firm was dissolved under a deed of dissolution dt. 31st March, 1978. Dividends in respect of supply of coffee made by the firm prior to its dissolution were received during the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1982-83. The Agrl. ITO made an assessment on the firm for the abovesaid four years. The assessment was made under s. 27 of the Agrl. IT Act ('the Act' for short). Those orders were challenged before the Karnataka Tribunal in AIT Nos. 51 to 55 of 1986. The Tribunal, by its order dt. 30th December, 1986, hel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR390]; ILR1997KAR1271; 1997(3)KarLJ375
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Services of the respondent-workman were terminated w.e.f. July 30, 1982 by the appellant. It was alleged that the respondent workman had preferred the funds to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- in order to suppress or conceal and to play fraud on the Bank in the year 1979. The workman alleged that he had been working honestly to the satisfaction of his superiors for a period of 17 years but was wrongly charge-sheeted on September 6, 1980 on frivolous ground and without any material. The action of the appellant was stated to be amounting to victimisation and unfair labour practice initiated with mala fide intention. The Government of Karnataka by its Order No. SWL 418 LLD 84, dated May 10, 1984 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Labour Court framed the following issues. 1. II Party to prove that Section 70 of K.C.S. Act bars the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, the reference is not maintainable. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant67; 1998(3)KarLJ674
ORDER1. The present petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 28-1-1991 with the Government of India through Department of Telecommunication to maintain at his costs STD public telephone at the premises known as 'Kranthi Complex', MSK Mill Road, Gulbarga. This agreement has been placed on record as Annexure-III(A) to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents. Pursuant to the said agreement the petitioner was favoured with telephone connection bearing No. 21357. It appears that for non-payment of the call charges collected by the petitioner within stipulated time the said telephone was disconnected in November, 1994. It also appears that even for the period of disconnection the petitioner has been served with the notice making him liable to pay the alleged minimum guarantee charges for the period November 1994 to May 1996 amounting to Rs. 30,400/- (see Annexure-K). The petitioner further wants that, he should be permitted to shift the installation of the STD pu...
Tag this Judgment!