Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998ACJ252; AIR1998Kant141; ILR1997KAR3290
P. Krishnamoorthy, J1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the award in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The first respondent-Claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the daughter of one Meenakshi. On 17-1-1980, at about 7.45 p.m., while Meenakshi along with one Devaki was going along the Court Road, Udupi, an Autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. MYX 7195, driven by the second respondent and owned by respondent 3, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Meenakshi and Devaki. Meenakshi sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and later she succumbed to the injuries. An application for compensation was filed by the first respondent alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent. Earlier to this application, one Devi Prasad Shetty, son of the deceased Meenakshi, had filed an application for compensation on account of the death ofhis mother Meenakshi. After ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1648
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an extremely sad case and to some extent, I sympathies with the submission made by the appellants' learned advocate when he points out that though a young man lost his life in the motor accident that his family is totally deprived of any compensation because of the delay. The proceeding itself was instituted before the Tribunal involving a delay of one year and 5 months and the respondents contested it on the point of limitation. Even though the learned Judge has held that the appellant's husband had also died sometime thereafter, that this ground would not be available because it is demonstrated that she has another grown up son. In these circumstances, the trial Court has held that the delay cannot be condoned and has dismissed the application. The appeal is directed against that order.2. What has unfortunately compounded the matters is the fact that when the appeal came up for hearing in the year 1988 it was just about 3 years after the accident and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ1255
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The only point raised by the appellant's learned Counsel is that even though the insurance company did not lead any specific evidence by examining its representative before the Tribunal to clarify the position that its liability was limited to Rs. 20,000, that the Tribunal was still in error in having held that the liability of the insurance company for the injury to the passenger was unlimited. The appellant's learned advocate submitted that annexure to the insurance policy was undoubtedly not signed on behalf of the insurance company but that this would make no difference because the statutory liability of the insurance company under the Act at that time was limited to Rs. 15,000 and if the terms of the policy were to be scrutinised it would be seen that an additional premium was paid for 50 passengers as a result of which liability of the insurance company stood at Rs. 20,000. The appellant's learned advocate drew my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1(1998)ACC296
P. Krishnamoorthy, J.1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the Award in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The first respondent-claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the daughter of one Meenakshi. On 17.1.1980, at about 7.45 p.m., while Meenakshi alongwith one Devaki was going along the Court Road, Udupi, an Auto rickshaw, bearing Regn. No. MYX 7195 driven by the second respondent and owned by respondent No. 3, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Meenakshi and Devaki. Meenakshi sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and later she succumbed to the injuries. An application for compensation was filed by the first respondent alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent. Earlier to this application, one Devi Prasad Shetty s/o the deceased Meenakshi, had filed an application for compensation on account of the death of his mother Meenakshi. After...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(59)ECC243; 1998(97)ELT57(Kar)
ORDERShri Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. In this petition for a writ of mandamus the petitioner seeks a direction against the Respondent to pass an order of adjudication pursuant to the classification list dated 1.1.1989 filed by it in the prescribed form. The controversy arises in the following backdrop :- 1.1. The Petitioner is a Statutory Body constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and engaged in generation, transmission and distribution of electricity within the State of Karnataka. It has established Workshops among other places at Mandya and Bangalore in which it fabricates certain items such as 2 pin cross arms, 3 pin cross arms, 4 pin cross arms, fish plates, PCC Pole clamps, RCC Pole clamps, DP sets, Earth guard stirrups, etc., used exclusively in the electricity transmission and distribution network established by the Board. A classification list effective from 1.1.1989 was filed by the petitioner before the Respondent-Assistant Commissioner Collector (sic) of Central Exc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR433; 2000(3)KarLJ62
ORDER1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, this C.R.P. has been taken up for final disposal and the same is accordingly disposed of by this order.2. It appears that a petition under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act was presented before the reference Court by an Advocate appearing for the petitioner praying to direct the opponent (petitioner herein) to refer the case to the Reference Court for adjudication regarding enhancement of compensation. The said petition filed on behalf of the petitioner by his learned Counsel was duly examined and registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1989 on the file of the Civil Judge at Karwar. It appears that the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also filed vakalat for the party. After the respondent entered appearance, he took exception to the application stating that the petition is not signed by the party but the same has been signed by the Advocate appearing for the party. The Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR880
ORDERChandrashekariah, J.1. The petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions by way of public interest litigation. 2. The land in Sy. No. 27 of Koudenahalli village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is classified as a tank as per the Revenue Records. The 5th respondent moved the State Government for grant of 10 acres out of the Total extent of 24 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No. 27 of Koudenahalli village. On the said application, the Government accorded approval to grant this land in favour of the 5th respondent by its order dated 25.11.88. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 6.1.89 levied the conversion fee to use the said land for non-agricultural purpose. On the basis of this order, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition assuming that there is a grant in favour of the 5th respondent, challenging the grant, if any, in favour of the 5th respondent. 3. The records produced before me show that this land is classified as a tank as per the entries in the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2158
ORDER1. These three petitions could be disposed of by a common order, since the parties involved in these three petitions are common and the basic issue involved is the correctness or otherwise of domestic enquiry proceedings against the petitioner by his employer.2. One Sri J.R. Rama Murthy, Chief Librarian, who was working in Kannada Viswavidyalaya, Hampi, Bellary District, questions the legality or otherwise of initiation of domestic enquiry proceedings by the Registrar of the University at the behest of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The action of the Vice-Chancellor is questioned on the ground that under the Kannada University Act, the Vice-Chancellor has no jurisdiction and authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against staff and non-staff members of the University. Secondly, the action is arbitrary, capricious and without just cause. Lastly, on the ground that the charges in the charge memo served on the petitioner are vague and therefore there was no reasonable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ376
ORDER1. The petitioner who is presently posted as Divisional Security Officer with the respondent-Corporation in this petition has prayed to:(i) strike down the provisions of Cadre, Recruitment, Probation and Promotion Rules of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, 1992 published by Standing Regulation No. SR 044, dated 31-3-1992 (Annexure-F) insofar as it pertains to the method of appointment and conditions of appointment to the post CVO; (ii) direct the respondent-Corporation to suitably amend the CRPP Rules of KPC Limited, 1992 making provision for filling the post of CVO by promotion from the post of DSO failing which by deputation of an officer from the State Police Service; and. . . 2. To support his case the petitioner has submitted that in case appropriate directions are not issued there would be stagnation as he would not be further promoted under the prevalent rules of the respondent-Corporation. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Commissioned Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3083; 1997(4)KarLJ348
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have sought for direction to the respondents not to put up any construction on the public street together with the footways, drains, roadways, riding path, passage, thoroughfare including drains attached to public street located in between the Ashoka Pillar road and Circle of R.V. Road, 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore running east to west.2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent-Corporation is attempting to put up construction on the foot paths which is meant for the public use. This is not disputed by the Corporation. The contention of the Corporation is that with a view to construct new market building by demolishing the old market where some of the persons are carrying on the business, the Corporation has taken steps to construct shops on the footpath in order to rehabilitate them temporarily. In order to rehabilitate the persons who are asked to vacate the shop premises in the old market b...
Tag this Judgment!