Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ391; ILR1998KAR3707
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1.The three claims that are the subject matter of these appeals relate to an incident that occurred on 1.10.1986 at 2.30 A.M. when a truck No. CAA 330 which was carrying stones capsized. Of the three coolies who were travelling in the vehicle, 2 died and 1 was injured giving raise to three claims being filed before the M.A.C.T., Gulbarga. The case of the claimants was that respondent 1 who was the son of respondent 2 (owner of the truck) was driving the vehicle and that because of his rashness and negligence the accident occurred. It was also contended that respondent No. 3 namely National Insurance Co. was liable because the vehicle was insured by respondent No. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement in which they contended that respondent 1 was not driving the vehicle and that one Murugesh was in fact driving it. It is relevant to point out that respondents 1 and 2 though represented by a lawyer did not participate in the proceedings in so far as neith...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)KarLJ141
ORDER1. By this petition, petitioner has sought the writ of certiorari quashing endorsement dated 20-11-1996 -- Annexure-A, issued by the District Magistrate, Mysore, requiring the petitioner to furnish what is bilaterally known in the cinema world, as the conversion certificate, but it may be said to be called as necessary permission to make use of agricultural land for the purposes other than the agricultural purpose or the purpose indicated in Section 95(1) of the Land Revenue Act. The petitioner has also prayed that the Annexure-A, may be declared to be unconstitutional, arbitrary and without authority. 2. According to the petitioner's case, Karnataka Cinema Regulations Act and the rules do not confer any power on the District Magistrate to reject the petitioner's application for grant of licence or renewal of licence, if user of land is not converted from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose- It has further been contended that the question of converting the land does n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1715; 1998(1)KarLJ81
ORDER1. There are 4 writ petitions. Writ Petition Nos. 13908 and 15405 of 1997 have been filed by the contractor. Writ Petition Nos. 11270 and 11356 of 1997 had been filed by the principal employer. All the four writ petitions challenge the order passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act.2. There was an order by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act directing the contractor and the principal employer to pay minimum wages.3. The facts very briefly are as follows. A claim application was filed against the contractor and against the principal employer. The contractor had employed security guards for guarding the establishment of the principal employer. It was alleged in the application that minimum wages were not paid as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with Karnataka Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules). The learned Authority after hearing the principal employer as well as the contractor held that minimum wages as required under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR368
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner before me is a Member of the Bar and he has challenged certain aspects of Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also the corresponding provisions of Rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989. The petitioner owns a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA-04-H-236. On 23.7.1994 when the petitioner was riding the vehicle on Bannerghatta Road the police stopped the vehicle and asked him to produce the Driving Licence, Insurance Certificate, Registration Certificate etc. The petitioner's case is that since he was not carrying these documents with him that the police straight away issued a summons to him alleging that he has committed an offence and directed him to appear before the Traffic Court of 30.7.94. His contention is that he was unnecessarily delayed because there was a lot of confusion in so far as many persons had been collected and the police took one hour to complete the formalities but none of the persons were allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR558; 2000(3)KarLJ525
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner is a customer of State Bank of Hyderabad at its Kinnal Branch. The Head Office, the Regional Office at Gulbarga, and the Branch at Kinnal of the said Bank are impleaded as respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to recredit a sum of Rs. 7,80,487/- to petitioner's account with the Kinnal Branch of the Bank.2. The petitioner's case is as follows:2.1 The petitioner was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 141, Budishettinal Village. The said land was acquired for construction of a Tank. She was illiterate and old. She engaged the services of the fourth respondent, who is an Advocate practising at Badami to conduct L.A.C. No. 26 of 1984 and Ex. No. 114 of 1987 rising therefrom, on the file of the Civil Judge, Koppal. A sum of Rs. 8,81,488-76 became due to her on account of acquisition of her land. On 15-10-1987, fourth respondent asked her to accompany him to the Office of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)146CTR(Kar)243; ILR1998KAR1379; [1998]233ITR235(KAR); [1998]233ITR235(Karn)
ORDER--Applicability of Explanation (c) to s. 263 Ratio :It is clear from the section 263(1) read with clause (c) of the Explanation that if an appeal filed against an order of the assessing officer had already been dispossed of prior to 1-6-1988, then irrespective of the fact whether any particular aspect of the orders appealed against was decided or not, the entire original orders had merged with the appellate order and since in the present case, the appeal preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) was disposed of prior to 1-6-1988, the assessment orders merged entirety with the appellate order and thus nothing was left for the Commissioner to examine and interfere within its revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Held :In substance, for a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263(1) read with clause (c) of the Explanation thereto, the order in the concerned appeal should have been passed on or after 1-6-1988, and, (ii) the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2518
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the respondents prayed for the issuance of writ of quo-warranto against appellants restraining them from functioning as the Adhyaksha of the Shimoga District Zilla Panchayath and Kulugatte Gram Panchayath. Writ Petitions were allowed vide orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which have been impugned in these appeals. As the questions of law involved are common, these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Writ petitioners in W.P.Nos. 12797/97 c/w W.P.Nos. 12386; 12723; 12757-60; and 12607/1997 are the residents of Zillia Panchayat, Shimoga. They submitted that Shimoga District Zilla Panchayat comprised of 41 elected members from the specified constituencies in the district of Shimoga. Out of the said 41 elected members, 8 belong to the Scheduled Castes including 3 women members elected for the Constituencies reserved for the Schedule Caste women. Two seats are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Notification No. SWL 289 LLD 90(1), presumably issued under S. 36B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), exempting the respondent-2 from the purview of the Act, was challenged by the appellant and the Union of Employees by Way of writ petition, alleging the same to be without jurisdiction and contrary to law. The writ petition was dismissed after the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-establishment stated that the management had no objection in petitioner's seeking adjudicating their rights before an appropriate forum under the Act, if and when the dispute is raised with respect to the termination of the service of the worker. The order of the learned Single Judge is stated to be against law because it has allegedly failed to consider the scope of S. 36B of the Act. It is contended that after the respondent-establishment had not pressed the impugned notification it was obligatory for the learned Single Judge to have allowed the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Notification No. SWL 289 LLD 90(1), presumably issued under Section 36-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), exempting the respondent-2 from the purview of the Act, was challenged by the appellant and the Union of the Employees by way of writ petition, alleging the same to be without jurisdiction and contrary to law. The writ petition was dismissed after the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-establishment stated that the management had no objection in petitioner's seeking adjudicating their rights before an appropriate forum under the Act, if and when the dispute is raised with respect to the termination of the service of the worker. The order of the learned Single Judge is stated to be against law because it has allegedly failed to consider the scope of Section 36-B of the Act. It is contended that after the respondent-establishment had not pressed the impugned notification it was obligatory for the learned Single Judge to have...
Tag this Judgment!