Karnataka Court November 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nirmala Bai and anr. Vs. Ashok and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ1163
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Both appeals arise from one common judgment and order dated 26.9.1997 delivered by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,367 in favour of the claimants-respondents. Feeling aggrieved from that award, the insurance company as well as the employer have filed Appeal No. 4755 of 1997 under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It may also be mentioned that from this very same order, M.F.A. No. 308 of 1998 has been filed by the employer alone. It has firstly been contended with reference to both the appeals by Mr. S.P. Shankar and Mr. Manikappa Patil that the claimant-injured had been mentioned to be 14 years of age and, therefore, he could not be an employee or workman under the present appellant in Appeal No. 308 of 1998, i.e., appellant No. 1 in M.F.A. No. 4755 of 1997. It may be mentioned that the compensation officer has considered the evidence and has held that the claimant was about 16 years on the da...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Obalesh and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC471; 2000ACJ1329
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the appellant Mr. S.V. Hegde Mukund.This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 30.9.1997 given by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Davanagere in Case No. Kanappa: CR 92 of 1996 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,57,427 in favour of the respondent No. 1, cleaner of the lorry in question.2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that, while moving in the goods vehicle belonging to the employer, in his capacity as the cleaner of the vehicle on 23.2.1996, the claimant, respondent No. 1 sustained injuries causing permanent disablement.The claimant made the claim for compensation and according to him he was getting Rs. 1,500 as monthly wages and Rs. 40 as bhatta per day. The claimant's case was that he suffered injuries on account of the accident in and during the course of employment.3. The notices were issued, the employer put in appearance through his counsel. He has not filed any written objections. Whereas the ins...
Smt. Maramma Vs. the Tahsildar, Sirguppa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1203; 2000(3)KarLJ393
ORDER1. None appears for the petitioner. When the matter has reached for hearing, there is absolutely no representation on the side of the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 is present and he has been heard in the matter. Learned Counsel for the other respondents is absent. There is absolutely no representation on their side also. Learned Government Pleader has contended that in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Gururaj alias Gurunath Govindrao Mutalik Desai v State of Karnataka and Others, the impugned order made by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-D may not be maintainable and since the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the matter on merits, it has to be remanded back to the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner for consideration of the revision on merits.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner was justified in dismissing the revision filed before her o...
The Government of Karnataka Vs. A. Prabhakar Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ92
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Yadgir in A.C. No. 2 of 1990, dated 6-6-1991 in confirming the award of the arbitrator dated 29th December, 1989 and making it a Rule of the Court.2. State of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') floated tenders for the construction of Cross Regulator-cum-Escape Regulator structure at K.M. 13.705 of Shahapur Branch Canal. The work was entrusted to the respondent on local competitive bidding tender basis as per the agreement dated 14/1984-85, dated 5-11-1984 by the Executive Engineer, ID, UKP, SBC, Division No. V, Bheemarayanagudi, Shahapur Taluka, Gulbarga District. The cost of the work as per the quoted rates of the respondent is Rs. 43,86,530/-. Mark out was given on 8-11-1984. The stipulated period for completing the work was 10 months. The due date of completion was 7-9-1985.3. The work consisted of a combined structure of Cross Regulator-cum-Escape Regulator at K.M. 13.705 of Shahapur Branch ...
Seenappa and Others Vs. Subbaiah and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1543; 2000(1)KarLJ584
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 276 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bangalore Rural District against orders passed on 9-1-1998 (sic) dismissing the said application.2. Revision petitioners who are the defendants 3 to 6 in the suit O.S. No. 276 of 1994 filed the application LA. VI under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC praying to dismiss the suit as the same is barred under the said provisions. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that the suit is not barred under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1(4) of the CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, defendants 3 to 6 filed the present revision petition.3. It is the contention of the revision petitioners-defendants 3 to 6 that the respondent-plaintiffs have previously filed a suit O.S. No. 6496 of 1989 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule property and in the said...
Neelappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2822; 1999(2)KarLJ201
ORDER1. Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.2. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of the parties.3. The petitioners belong to the Scheduled Caste community. One Doddaningappa Bankapur, father of the petitioners died on 29-7-1986. It is stated that the petitioners are eking out their livelihood as agricultural coolies. They are the residents of Hirepeth, Hale Hubli, Hubli Taluk. The petitioners have a land measuring 1 acre 6 guntas in Sy. No. 75 and 2 acres 3 guntas in Sy. No. 74-A of Krishnapura Village, Hubli Taluk.4. It is submitted that these are dry lands. It is submitted that on 9-1-1995, second petitioner received a notice from the second respondent that the said lands comes within the Urban Land Ceiling and it was also stated that the authorities intended to measure the land. It was also submitted that the petitioner's father the said Doddaningappa Bankapur died on 29-7-1986 even before the competent authority passed an order. The competent authority...
Management of Kanoria Industries Ltd. Vs. Bagalkot Cement Company Work ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR958]; ILR1999KAR2707; (2000)ILLJ267Kant
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. One K. Sudhakar and another M.R. Mallapur, the employees of the petitioner, were dismissed from job on certain allegations. Certain Charter of Demands raised by the first respondent union, which also include the dismissal of the aforesaid two employees, were referred by the Government for adjudication by the 2nd respondent Industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of the said reference, an application was filed by the two dismissed employees seeking grant of interim relief at the rate of 75% of their last drawn salary. The Tribunal considered the said application and passed the impugned order allowing the application and directed the petitioner to pay the interim relief claimed by the two employees. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.2. The impugned order is challenged mainly on two grounds. They are (1) Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act confers unlimited power upon the Tribunal and the said power can be exercised onl...
Suresh and Others Vs. State by T. Narasipura Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ303
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. All the above three appeals are interconnected inasmuch as they are directed against the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence as against one set of accused persons as well as the order of acquittal as against another set of accused persons dated 1-3-1996 in SC No. 69 of 1991 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore. The accused persons acquitted are accused 1 to 3, 6, 8 and 10 whereas accused persons convicted are 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 when there were in all 11 accused persons who had taken trial before the learned Sessions Judge.2. In the first appeal i.e., Cri. A. No. 250 of 1996, accused 5-Suresh, accused 9-B.P. Parashivamurthy, accused 11-Basavaraju had challenged the above judgment and order of conviction and sentence under Sections 143, 147 , 148, 341, 324 , 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.3. In the second appeal i.e., Cri. A. No. 338 of 1996, accused 4-Mahalingu and accused 7-Sivamurthy had challenged their conviction and sentenc...
R.N. Madhava Vs. Canara Bank, Head Office, J.C. Road, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1322; ILR1999KAR507
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. This is an unfortunate case, for a Bank clerk (also an ex-serviceman) who had grievance of denial promotion to him for pretty long time is up in arms as against his own employer, the Canara Bank. This petition is filed under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act as against the respondent-Canara Bank, represented by its Chairman, Sri T.R. Sridharan, with a prayer that the respondent-Bank be proceeded against for the offence committed under sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. We heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, Sri O. Sridharan on the one side and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri M.R. Narasimhamurthy appearing for the respondent-Bank. We also perused the case records. 3. The main allegations averred in the contempt petition are that when W.A. No. 367 of 1993 came to be disposed of on 5-2-1996 by the Division Bench to which the second of us was a Presiding Judge along with his Lordship Justice S.A. Hakeem, as he t...
Smt. L. Nagamallikamba and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ306
ORDER1.These civil revision petitions are filed by the decree-holders in Execution Petition No. 222 of 1997 and other connected petitions being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Koppal, dated 4-4-1998.2. The short question which arises for consideration in these revision petitions is whether the decree-holder is entitled for interest on solatium and additional amount awarded in the awards passed by the learned Civil Judge which are under execution before the Executing Court. In the awards passed which are under execution before the Executing Court in all these matters, compensation was awarded to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per acre with solatium on the market value awarded at 30% and additional market value at 12% on the market value from 1-6-1972 to 24-12-1986 and in addition to the above amounts interest was awarded at 9% per annum on compensation amount for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land from the claimants i....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »