Karnataka Court November 2000 Judgments
Mrs. M.S. Poornima and Another Vs. Lakshmana Tirakappa Hunshikatti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ158
1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company and the owner challenging the judgment and award in MVC No. 4 of 1996 on the file of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Haveri. 2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the injury sustained by him in a road accident on 7-11-1994 at about 7.00 a.m. near the Inspection Bungalow at Shiggaon. According to him, on the fateful day, he had gone in on his motor-cycle to a petrol bunk and thereafter to the garage of one Ramesh to check the air to his motor-cycle. He was proceeding to his business shop, at that time, the first respondent, being the driver of the luxury bus bearing No. KA-01/5145 came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. On account of the same he was thrown out from the spot. He sustained grievous injuries. He was treated in the Government Hospital and later he was shifted to KMC, Hubli. He has spent Rs. 25,000...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Yadiyurappa Vs. Mahalingappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant61; ILR2000KAR4449; 2001(2)KarLJ577
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has sought a declaration to the effect that declaration of election of the respondent 1 vide Annexure-A declaring respondent 1 as returned candidate from 167, Shikaripura Assembly Constituency, as illegal, null and void as per Section 100 (b) and (d)(ii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and for declaration that the petitioner is the returned candidate from the said constituency as per Section 101(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. The election to the eleventh Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 167, Shikaripura Constituency and to the 13th Lok Sabha for 21 Shimoga Parliamentary Constituency were held simultaneously on 11-9-1999. The result of that election was declared on 6-10-1999. The 1st respondent in the petition namely Mahalingappa was declared elected to the Legislative Assembly from this constituency. The petitioner has sought the declaration of election to be null and void.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Limited, Mangalore Vs. the Member, Motor A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC512; 2002ACJ189; 2001(2)KarLJ629
ORDER1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Insurance Company has sought to challenge the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.V.C. No. 298 of 1994. The Tribunal decided M.V.C. Nos. 298, 299, 300, 337 and 352 of 1994 by one common judgment allowing the Claims and withreference to claim case No. 298 of 1994, it had awarded the total compensation of Rs. 4,97,500-00.2. The accident in question had taken place on 21-11-1993 at about 3-10 p.m. Muralidhar, deceased, and Rukminiamma, now died, were travelling in a tempo bearing registration No. CNG-8836 from Udupi to Kapu. At that time, according to claimant's case, a bus bearing registration No. CNG-9385 came from opposite direction in a bigh speed and in a rash and negligent manner from the wrong side of the road and hit a portion of the tempo in which deceased Muralidhar and others were travelling. As a result of injuries, Muralidhar died and others suffered injuries....
Tag this Judgment!Kazia Mohammed Muzzammill Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ412
ORDER1. The petitioner is resident of Bhatkal Town in Uttara Kannada District. At the material time he was a practising advocate. He has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the prayer to direct the respondents to produce before this Court the 'Goonda List' or 'Rowdy Sheet' maintained in the Bhatkal Police Station and on perusal thereof, if the name of the petitioner is found therein, then the same should be quashed as being baseless and arbitrary.2. The Superintendent of Police, who is the sole respondent herein, has filed his Statement of Objections. According to him, keeping in view the antecedents and past activities of the petitioner, his name was entered in Form No. 100 being the Communal Goonda Sheet on 8-1-1993, under Order No. 9/93 dt. 2-1-1993 of the then Superintendent of Police, Uttara Kannada. The learned Advocate General, who is appearing for the respondent, has also produced original records to substantiate the appropriateness of making of such an entry.3. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Coorg Honey and Wax Co-operative Marketing Limited, Virajpet Vs. K.B. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ354; (2001)ILLJ820Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case have challenged the order dated 27-3-1997 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madikere. The controversy was within a very narrow ambit insofar as the applicant who has since died, claimed that he had been employed as a Night Watchman of the respondent-Society and that he was originally employed from 20-9-1970 for a period of six months and was continued for about 10 years without any other change of status. Originally, the dispute was with regard to the correctness of his being retired insofar as the respondent-Society contended that he had attained the age of 58 years whereas, the decision came to be challenged and the applicant was able to establish that his correct age was 56 years 10 months as a result of which he was eligible for the service benefits for the balance period of 1 year and 2 months. We are not really concerned with that dispute because the present challenge is under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act wherein...
Tag this Judgment!Tharunya Mahila Samaja Regd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant35
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. Petitioner is a registered Association. It is running a fair price depot. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent Tahsildar has reduced 121 ration cards allotted to petitioner's shop and consequently the supply of essential commodities had been reduced. Hence, it is seeking a direction to the respondents to allot and'release the commodities as was done during the months of June and July 1997. 2. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that both the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner have reported to the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner has misused 745 litres of kerosene. On complaints, the Deputy Commissioner personally inspected the petitioner's depot on 7-7-1996 and subsequently the Tahsildar made inspection. In the report submitted, it was pointed-out that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in the supply of food grains and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chotibi (Smt.) Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ79Kant
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Heard Sri. Prabhulinga K. Navadgi learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Harikrishna Holla, learned counsel for R-1 and Smt. H.R. Renuka for R-2.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the 1st respondent has committed an error in not making an order fixing the family pension of the petitioner and also to release the family pension from the date of death of her husband till payment which has accrued to her account.3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for an employees pension in view of the fact that the husband of the petitioner had not contributed to Provident Fund for a minimum period of 2 years and therefore, she was paid the amount which was contributed by the respondent during his life time. Therefore, he submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the matter was pending before the au...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateshan S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: 2001(73)ECC387
ORDER1. On 8.2.2000, the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, issued a detention order (Annexure-A) under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [for short, COFEPOSA, Act], being satisfied that it was necessary to make such an order, directing that one B. Sankar, s/o late Balakrishnan, No. 14,1 Main, 5th Cross, Balajinagar, DRC Post, Bangalore-560 029 be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Bangalore, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The said B. Sankar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Detenu') was served with the said order on 15.2.2000 along with the grounds of detention dated 8.2.2000 and copies of documents with list, relied upon by the Detaining Authority for issuing the said order of detention. Tamil Translations of the detention order, Grounds of detention and the documents ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›