Karnataka Court March 1998 Judgments

G. Umadevi Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ199

ORDER1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation and for reallotment of the sites in question and to reallot the sites in question in favour of the petitioner and to issue possession certificates to the petitioners and to cancel or withdraw the sites granted in favour of respondents 2 and 3. Petitioner has further prayed for grant of such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.2. Petitioner in the writ petition has stated that she has purchased a revenue site bearing No. 3 measuring 40' x 36' formed in Sy. No. 15/2 of Kathriguppa Village under registered sale deed dated 10-4-1974 from her vendor Smt. B.N. Suguna for valuable consideration. She has asserted that from the date of purchase of aforementioned site, petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said site. Petitioner's case is that her n...

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Gangavva and Ano ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ433

1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company to challenge the order dated 30-10-1993 in WCA.SR. 32 of 1993 passed by the Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, New Division, Bijapur, whereunder as against the original claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 89,600/- was awarded in favour of the respondent 1-claimant. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company,Sri S.P. Shankar, the respondent 1, Sri G.S. Kannur and the respondent 2, Sri P.S. Manjunath. I have also perused the case records together with records of the Commissioner below. 3. The facts relevant for our purpose are as hereunder: That one Shanthabai aged about 20 years, the daughter of the respondent 1-claimant was working as a coolie under the respondent 2. That she entered into service on 4-12-1990 and her salary was shown at Rs. 1,027/- p.m. That she met with an accident within the premises of the factory of the respondent 2 on 14-3-1991 and subsequently she succumbed to the acciden...

Smt. Nagawwa Vs. the General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant296; 1998(3)KarLJ433

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-10-1995 in MVC No. 1209 of 1990 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal, in rejecting the claim petition on the ground that it was barred by time, the petitioner/appellant has questioned it in this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are the petitioner was owner of a she buffalo which met with an accident on 5-2-1989 as a result of which it died. The petitioner who is the owner filed petition on 26-10-1990 claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 12,000/- in MVC No. 1209 of 1990. The said petition came to be rejected. The petitioner also filed an application to condone the delay. The respondents filed objections as a result of which the petitioner let in evidence on the said contentions raised in the affidavit filed alongwith the I.A. The learned Civil Judge after assessing the evidence has come to the conclusion that the claim petition must be filed within six months from the date of the occurrence of the accident. Th...

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. K.B. Chandra ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1999)ACC227; 2000ACJ125; ILR1998KAR2295; 1999(1)KarLJ431

ORDER1. Mr. D. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that for the amputation of 1/3rd middle finger of the right hand, the compensation awarded at Rs. 50,000/- is on the higher side.2. It is pertinent to note that middle finger of any individual is very important. Even it is considered that it is a bad omen for such a man to participate in the religious function. In my opinion, the claimant will be suffering from many embarrassments and impediments in his life throughout. If such thing happens to a bachelor, the prospects of marriage will also be hampered. Perused the judgment and award. The Tribunal has awarded little bit higher compensation towards medical expenses and the loss of future income. However, the total compensation awarded, in my opinion, appears to be just and reasonable. Hence, there are no compelling reasons to interfere with the judgment and award of the Lower Court. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed....

Smt. Lalitha and Another Vs. Dashanbhat Haribansh Bhat and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000ACJ200; AIR1998Kant344; ILR1998KAR2210; 1998(5)KarLJ27

Ashok Bhan, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13th June, 1989 passed in MVC No. 882 of 1987 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. III and II Additional District Judge, Belgaum, this appeal has been filed claiming enhanced compensation for the death of Bahubali Tavanappa Gouranna, in an accident that occurred on 21st October, 1987.2. The brief facts are: Deceased was waiting for conveyance to come to Belgaum on the extreme eastern side of the Poona-Bangalore road near Hebbal cross on 21st October, 1987. A tanker bearing No. MWU 3685 driven by respondent 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and dashed against the deceased with great speed. Deceased died on the spot due to the said impact. FIR No. 156 of 1987 was registered. Post mortem was got done by Sankeshwar Police in the course of their investigation. The dead body was handed over to the wife and the mother of the deceased, appellants 1 and 2 respectively. It is averred in the claim applica...

Shankerappa Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000ACJ709

Chidananda Ullal, J.1. This appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle to challenge the judgment and award dated 15.1.1993 in MVC No. 51 of 1987 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bidar (District Judge, Bidar). In passing the same, the M.A.C.T. had fastened the entire liability on the appellant. The grievance of the appellant herein is that the M.A.C.T. would have fastened the liability also on the respondent No. 1 insurance company.2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant owner, Mr. Manikappa Patil and the learned counsel, Mr. G.R. Ramesh, appearing for the respondent No. 1 insurance company. The respondent No. 2 is represented by Mr. B.A. Chandrashekar, whereas the respondent No. 3 claimant is represented by Mr. M.V. Seshachala. I have also perused the case records together with the records of the M.A.C.T. below.3. The case requires narration of the facts and the same are as hereunder:That the respondent No. 3 had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents...

Wahab Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR1366; 1998(3)KarLJ354

ORDERR. P. Sethi, C.J.1. In all these petitions, a preliminary objection is required to be decided regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions filed against the orders of the Administrative Tribunal admittedly passed before 18th March, 1997, the day on which the seven Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court decided L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India and Others . Another redeeming feature in these petitions is that all the petitioners had moved the Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act for review of its earlier order or for initiating contempt proceedings of the alleged violation of its orders passed before 18-3-1997 and their applications were admittedly rejected after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Kumar's case. Prior to the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandra Kumar's case, supra, no writ petition with respect to a matter covered by the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act was maintainable in this Court in view of provisions of...

Y.N. Gopala Rao Vs. D.R. Laxminarayana and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ677

Acts/Rules/Orders:Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10, 12, 19, 20, 21 and 22Cases Referred:Mrs. Chandnee Widya Vati Madden v. Dr. C.L. Katial and Others, AIR 1964 SC 978, (1964)2 SCR 495;Prakash Chandra v. Angadlal and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1241;Lalji and Others v. Ramji Seth, AIR 1978 All. 212;Lt. Cdr. M.C. Kendall v. S. Chandrasekhar, 1992(1) Kar. L.J. 604, ILR 1991 Kar. 4142;Yogambika v. Narsingh, ILR 1992 Kar. 717;Yohannan and Another v. Harikrishnan Nair and Others, AIR 1992 Ker. 49;Y.A. Kader v. Muthulakshmi Ammal (deceased) by L.Rs, AIR 1992 Mad. 208;C.N. Ranganath v. M.R. Thyagaraja, 1996(7) Kar. L.J. 712;M/s. P.R. Deb and Associates v. Sunanda Roy, AIR 1996 SC 1504;N.P. Thirugnanam (deceased) by L.Rs v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and Others, AIR 1996 SC 116;Ramji Patel v. Rao Kishore Singh, AIR 1929 190;Pasumarti Ramulu v. Nuthi Anantha Ramulu, AIR 1966 AP 70JUDGEMENT1. This is plaintiff's first appeal from the judgment and decree dated 1-4-1993, delivered by Sri R,H. Raddi, Pri...

Sarat Babu Koganti Vs. the Bangalore University and Others

Court: Karnataka

Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to regularise the admission of the petitioner for the First Year Medical Course in respondent 4-College for the Academic Year 1994-95. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Indian non-resident residing in U.S.A. He passed High School equivalency diploma of 12 years in Fayatteville-Manilus Senior High School of New York State accredited by New York State Board of Regents Middle States Associations of Colleges and Secondary Schools in the year 1985. 3. The petitioner applied for the admission of the First Years Medical Course in respondent 4-College in the month of September 1994 along with required certificates. Respondent 4 admitted him and petitioner also paid fifty thousand dollars as admission fees as fixed by the University-respondent 1. Thereafter he started attending the classes. The examination of the I Year M.B.B.S. was going to start on 16-8-1995 and...

Beera Aayu Agera Vs. Land Tribunal, Ankola, Uttara Kannada District an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR2381; 1998(3)KarLJ14

ORDER1. Rule.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contesting respondent 3 and Smt. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader, for respondents 1 and 2.2. The records of the Land Tribunal have been produced.3. The Land Tribunal under its order dated 24-9-1997 (Annexure-C) passed in Case No. KLR:SR:4250+731 has registered occupancy in favour of the third respondent by holding that on 1-3-1974 he was personally cultivating the land in question as a permanent tenant. The said order is being impugned herein by the petitioner on the ground that as of fact he was in personal cultivation of the said land as a sub-tenant under third respondent and therefore as provided under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') occupancy ought to have been registered in his favour.4. The petitioner has based his claim of sub-tenancy on the basis of an agreement dated 7-7-1972 (Annexure-G) entered into between him and the third respondent. According to the petitio...