Karnataka Court January 2000 Judgments
Dr. B. Radhakrishna Vs. Smt. Gouramma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ594; [2000(85)FLR388]; ILR2000KAR1017; 2000(2)KarLJ571; (2000)IILLJ182Kant
1. Heard Mr. Latur, learned Counsel for the appellant.2. On 30-1-1990, the appellant was constructing a residential building at Site No. 337, 12th Cross, II Block, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore. He had given contract to carry out the tile polishing work for the entire house to respondent 3 who had employed the deceased to carry out the polishing work by machine. The machine which was brought by the deceased as per the direction of respondent 3 was out of order. As such, the deceased died due to electric shock. Hence, the L.R. of the deceased filed WCA FC CR No. 22 of 1990 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Division No. 2, VISL Building, Bangalore City. After hearing the case, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, has passed the judgment and award for a sum of Rs. 71,498-28 against the respondent 3 and the appellant apportioning the compensation equally.3. Mr. Latur, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the direction that the appellant also responsible to pay 50% of ...
Tag this Judgment!Siddaramappa Murgappa Kudagi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Ano ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1838; 2000(4)KarLJ111
ORDER1. The lands belonging to the petitioners in these petitions were declared to be required for a public purpose by issuing notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). Thereafter, in a proceeding relating to passing of the award as required under Section 11 of the Act, the land owners executed an agreement agreeing to receive the compensation by giving up the rights insofar as solatium and additional market value is concerned. On the basis of the said agreement the LAO passed the consent award. These awards are called in question by the petitioners in these petitions on the following grounds:(a) The agreement relied upon by the LAO for the purpose of passing a consent award ought not to have been relied upon since the signatures of the petitioners were obtained on the blank papers and these papers were thereafter filled up and treated as agreements for the purpose of passing the awards.(b) When once an application is filed for reference under S...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Others Vs. Kum. L.N. Girija
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ174
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, C.J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order at Annexure-A, dated 11-6-1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, allowing the application filed by the respondent and granting the reliefs prayed for.2. The brief facts of the case are, the respondent has been working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Postal Department. The department formulated a scheme to grant incentives for acquiring higher professional qualification in Institute of Cost and Works Accounts of India (in short 'ICWA examination') examination. According to the scheme, two advance increments will be granted after passing inter examination and four more increments after passing the final examination. Respondent passed the intermediate examination during December 1994. When she claimed advance increments as per the scheme, she was granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 4,000/-. This was based on the Official Memorandum dated 28-6-1993 by which the system...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Taramani Vs. B.N. Rajashekar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC257; ILR2000KAR1309; 2000(3)KarLJ188
1. This appeal raises a pure point of law. The appellant's learned Advocate has demonstrated that the appellant who was the wife of Sri B.N. Rajashekar filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Munsiff and JMFC, Tarikere being C.C. No. 75 of 1992 alleging that the husband who was the original A-1 had gone through a ceremony of marriage with A-3 and that they are living as husband and wife and furthermore that they have one child born to them. The remaining four accused have been arraigned before the Court on the ground that they have abetted the commission of the criminal offence of bigamy on the part of the husband A-1 and A-3. Briefly stated, the defence pleaded by A-1 and A-3 was to the effect that they are only living together and that there is no evidence before the Court to the effect that they have committed the offence of bigamy. Basically, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the law on the point as far as Section 494, Indian Penal Code, is concerned ...
Tag this Judgment!Karabasappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR380; 2001(1)KarLJ282
ORDER1. The petitioners in these petitions are all holders of Hawkers' licences under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 (for short, 'licencing order'). A few of them have also obtained authorisation under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 ('PDS Control Order' for short). 2. Petitioners are allotted kerosene for distribution under the public distribution system to ration card holders. Petitioners claim that each Hawker who possesses a push-cart, is allotted 150 to 300 ration cards for distribution of kerosene. It is stated that each card holder is entitled to 10 litres of kerosene per month, if he does not have gas connection (and two litres per month if he has gas connection). Having regard to the number of ration cards allotted to each Hawker, and the quantity of kerosene to which each ration card holder is entitled, each Hawker gets about 2,000 to 3,000 litres of kerosene for distribution to the ration card ho...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Sadanand Parusharam Hosurkar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC312; 2000CriLJ2426; 2000(2)KarLJ477
1. This appeal raises an issue of safety with regard to a very simple and common place of practice that is being permitted to continue by default and which is responsible for the loss of several valuable lives, as has happened in this case, particularly of young persons. The deceased Afzal along with one Jameel were double riding on a bicycle at Station Road, Khanapur, at about noon on 14-1-1994, It is alleged that a tempo coming from the opposite direction which was being driven by the accused collided with the bicycle as a result of which Afzal sustained head injuries of some seriousness. He was shifted to the local hospital but in view of his condition, he was being moved to the better equipped hospital at Belgaum but unfortunately, he died on the way to the hospital. The Police arrested the accused who was the tempo driver and charged with having committed offences punishable under Section 279 read with Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The defence had contended that Afzal was wear...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Laxman Doddamani and Another Vs. Tilakraj Bhaktavarmal Maha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1511; 2000(3)KarLJ257
ORDER1. The petitioners who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 434 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junion Division), Dharwad, have filed the suit for a decree for an injunction as against the defendant. The prayer in the suit reads as follows:'That the defendants or any other persons on their behalf, restrained permanently from erecting any permanent structure in the suit property, as the suit property is already acquired by the Corporation and is left for public purpose'.By reading of the above prayer, it is clear that the suit has been instituted by the petitioners in the representative capacity for the benefit of the general public. The person who files the suit in the representative capacity requires permission of the Court before instituting the suit as required under Order 1, Rule 8 of the CPC read with Order 7, Rule 4 of the CPC. In the case on hand, the plaintiff/petitioner had not obtained the permission of the Court before instituting the suit as provided under ...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ78Kant
1. The management has preferred this appeal against the order dated October 27, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 31121 to 31209 of 1994.2. The learned Single Judge has found that the interim order passed by the Labour Court granting the interim relief of payment of 50% of the average wages subject to modification that it will be payable only for the period up to April 19, 1996, on which day they were again employed.3. It is not in dispute that the respondents had been on the badli list of the appellant-Management, and they had been working as badli workers as and when permanent workmen remained absent, went on leave or retired etc. The said list was being maintained and work was offered to the respondents and persons similarly situated pursuant to an industrial settlement dated July 19, 1989 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). Paragraph 28 of the Memorandum of Settlement to the extent to which it is relevant reads as under:'It is agreed between the parties t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meera Arya and Another Vs. Smt. Leela Nagraj and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR586; 2000(4)KarLJ72
ORDER1. These two appeals arise from a proceedings in suit O.S. No. 6317 of 1997 on the file of the 7th Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore. The plaintiff is the appellant. Mr. B.N. Dayanand, learned Counsel who was appearing for the defendants submits that he takes notice for the respondents and will file power within two weeks. On this basis he agrees that the appeals may be heard and disposed of finally.2. The brief facts relevant for this disposal are as follows:The suit is one for recovery of money. Along with the plaint, I.A. I was filed by the plaintiff seeking attachment of properties scheduled as Schedules A and B properties belonging to the defendant before judgment. Interim attachment was granted. Defendants appeared and filed an I.A. to vacate the attachment. Later on the said I.A. filed to vacate the interim attachment was dismissed as not pressed. After dismissal of that I.A., defendants filed yet another application offering his sister's property as property for attachment...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakara Shetty Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division, My ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3692; ILR2000KAR1589; 2000(4)KarLJ221
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner who has been deprived of his arms licence calls in question the correctness and validity of the order dated 27-7-1991, produced as Annexure-A, passed by the second respondent revoking his licence and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, produced at Annexure-B, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are:The petitioner is a resident of Thalipadi Village of Dakshina Kan-nada District. At present he resides in Bombay where he is running a bar in the name and style of Hotel Vaishali, He holds an arms licence which was issued to him under Order No. DK. MAN 258/1-III. He possesses a 32 bore revolver. It is contended by the petitioner that on 23-12-1999 at about 7.30 p.m. the petitioner heard shouts from the members of the public who were shouting 'thief thief and the petitioner saw a person running and the public trying to catch him. The said person fired 2 to 3 rounds from his revolver and the pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »