Karnataka Court March 1998 Judgments
The United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore and Another Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ182; 1998(5)KarLJ31
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 23-11-1996 passed in MVC No. 1183 of 1991 granting the compensation of Rs. 1,55,226-55 for the respondents for the death of one Ganesha Sheregara who was a passenger in the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 01-F-12 bound from Udupi towards Bangalore. 2. When the said bus was proceeding after Katpady, a lorry bearing Registration No. CTW 5451 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the hind portion of the bus wherein the deceased, on account of the impact, sustained grievous injuries such as head injury, severe and grievous multiple injuries and fractures as mentioned in column 11 of the petition. Subsequently the injured passenger was shifted to the hospital for medical aid and as such while he was taking treatment succumbed to the injuries on 15-9-1991. Hence the petition was filed by the respondents and has been decided by the MACT, Udupi. 3. For the respondents, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are examined and Exs. P-l to P-13 are mark...
Tag this Judgment!Airfreight Limited, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR231]; ILR1998KAR2826; 1998(5)KarLJ300
ORDER1. Respondents 3 to 5 in W.P. No. 23095 of 1997 and respondents 3 to 18 in W.P. No. 23096 of 1997 are the employees of the Airfreight Lim-ited, petitioner in both these writ petitions. According to the said employees, they are required to be paid minimum wages and Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) in accordance with the notification issued by the first respondent State Government on 19-8-1987 at Annexure-D under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ('Act' for short). Their main grievance was with regard to non-payment of VDA by their employer. They, therefore, filed applications under Section 20(2) of the Act, seeking directions to pay difference of minimum wages. By the orders at Annexure-L in each of the writ petitions, the employees are held entitled to difference of minimum wages to the extent of Rs. 8,740/- each, by way of VDA, in terms of the above said order at Annexure-D. In addition, the second respondent authority has also directed compensation pa...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sampurnamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ332
ORDER1. Heard Sri Vivek Reddy holding brief for Sri K.N. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions and Sri N.K. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent 2 as well as Sri M.H. Ibrahim, learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 4 and Sri S.R. Ramprakash, learned Counsel for the respondent 3.2. The petitioners in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for the following reliefs.-Issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to regularise the occupation of the petitioners in accordance with their respective holdings in lands bearing Sy. Nos. 69 and 58 and 56 as well as to declare that the respondent 3 is a stranger and has no right, title or interest over the properties in Sy. Nos. 56, 58 and 69 of Gavipuram village in the wake of the acquisition by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board and for grant of any such other reliefs as Court d...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveer Associates Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: [2001]122STC466(Kar)
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. Petitioners in all the writ petitions seek the following relief :'(a) to declare the hike in payment of registration fees from Rs. 250 to Rs. 500 as per amendment made to Section 10A(1) and 10A(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, by Karnataka Taxation Laws Amendment Act (Act 7 of 1997) as unconstitutional and a colourable exercise of legislative power and as being outside legislative entry 66 of List II to the Constitution of India ;(b) to declare Section 10A(5) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, in so far as it obliges registered dealers to pay renewal fees equivalent to registration fees every year as being constitutionally void and being violative of Articles 19 and 300A of the Constitution and as being a colourable exercise of power and being outside the legislative power under entry 66, List II to the Constitution.'Section 10A(1) as stood originally stipulated that an application for registration as a dealer shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 6. This was up to...
Tag this Judgment!L.N. Shivashankar Vs. T. Hanumanthappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ483
1. The third defendant is the purchaser, after the agreement of sale which sale has ended in a decree for specific performance, who is the appellant before this Court. The fact there was an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and for specific performance the suit came to be filed and ultimately the suit has been decreed by the Courts below cannot be disputed.2. Now the short question in the second appeal would be whether the appellant-third defendant is the bona fide purchaser. After the dictum of the Supreme Court that in such a situation, it is such kind of purchaser who can only prove before the Court whether their purchase is bona fide or not and they cannot be allowed to embark upon to call for adjudication on any other point. Now normally a bona fide purchaser is not expected to know the agreement. But in this case it so happened that the Sub-Registrar admitted the existence of the agreement of sale and who in turn informed the same to the appellant. Despite such informa...
Tag this Judgment!Saleem Khan Vs. Presiding Officer, Karnataka State Transport Appellate ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1998
Reported in: II(1998)ACC760; ILR1998KAR2799; 1998(4)KarLJ392
ORDER1. The petitioner filed two applications before the II respondent to grant stage carriage permits for the route Bangalore to Mulbagal and back via places mentioned therein. The said applications were considered by the II respondent in Subject Nos. 113 of 1995-96 and 114 of 1995-96 at its meeting held on 19-3-1996. The II respondent was pleased to grant the permits by its decision dated 21-5-1996. The appellant after obtaining the permits got the timings fixed and started operating the routes on 30th May, 1996. From 19th June, 1996 the operation had to be stopped in pursuance of Annexure-A. The KSRTC contested the matter in W.P. Nos. 14352 to 14358 of 1996. The writ petitions were allowed and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. Meanwhile the Writ Appeal Nos. 6889 and 6890 of 1996 were filed. Much water has flowed over subsequently and many writ petitions have been filed and the matters have been remanded back. Finally the order as per Annexure-H was passed. Being ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Radhakrishna Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hosur, Hubli an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ637
ORDER1. In all these petitions the petitioners have sought for striking down the provision of Section 32(5) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1987') and further sought for a declaration that the petitioners are the owners of the civic amenity sites and for further declaration that the Urban Development Authority has no right whatsoever to deal with the said property.2. It is in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Section 32(5) of the Act 1987 is liable to be struck down on the ground that the State is not competent to legislate the law and also on the ground that Section 32(5) of the Act 1987 is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel Sri L. Govindraj, Sri Jaykumar S. Patil, Sri S.V. Prakash, and others submitted that the Act 1987 provides for acquisition of land for the purpose of development of major and important urban areas in the State of ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mahaboobi and Others Vs. Abdul Rashid and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: II(1998)ACC701; 2000ACJ493; [1999(81)FLR116]; ILR1998KAR3811; 1998(4)KarLJ406; (1999)IILLJ1360Kant
1. These two appeals are interconnected. MFA No. 1371 of 1994 is filed by the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Labour Welfare Officer, Bijapur, for enhancement of the compensation whereas connected MFA No. 1336 of 1998 is filed by the respondent 1 to absolve the liability under the impugned award. In both the appeals the common award dated 30-9-1993 in Case No. WCA:SR: 105 of 1992 is under challenge.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereto are referred to as they occurred in the first appeal i.e., MFA No. 1371 of 1994.3. In the first appeal the appellants are represented by the learned Counsel Sri Ramesh B. Anneppannavar whereas the respondents are represented by the learned Counsel, Sri Umesh R. Malimath. The second appeal filed by the respondent 1 since in the initial stage of issuance of notice to the respondents, Sri Ramesh B. Anneppannavar is directed to take notice for the respondents-claimants. Sri Umesh B. Malimath represented the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Venkateshwara Tourist Home (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Director of Inc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2875; [1998]233ITR736(KAR); [1998]233ITR736(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated April 19, 1991, passed under Section 131(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, restraining the respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of the notice issued. A prayer is also made for return of the documents which are stated to be illegally seized in the proceedings under Section 133A of the Act.2. The facts of the case are :That two officers of the Income-tax Department came for survey in the business premises of the petitioner on April 19, 1991, around 10.30 a.m. and certain documents were sorted out by them. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 131 of the Act at 5.30 p.m. on the same day to appear before the said authority at 7 p.m. asking to bring the books of account of the years ending March 31, 1989, to March 31, 1991 besides various items for which inventory was produced.The contention which has been raised before me is that the action of the authority in seizing the books of account in ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Radhakrishna Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3794
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. In all these petitions the petitioners have sought for striking down the provision of Section 32(5) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' 1987) and further sought for a declaration that the petitioners are the owners of the civic amenity sites and for further declaration that the Urban Development Authority has no right whatsoever to deal with the said property.2. It is in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Section 32(5) of the Act 1987 is liable to be struck down on the ground that the State is not competent to legislate the law and also on the ground that Section 32(5) of the Act 1987 is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel Sri L. Govindraj, Sri Jaykumar S. Patil, Sri S.V. Prakash and others submitted that the Act, 1987 provides for acquisition of land for the purpose of development of major and important urban ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »