Karnataka Court February 2001 Judgments
The Oriental Insurance Company, Bangalore Vs. N.R. Patel and Company, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2001ACJ2042; 2002(3)KarLJ361
Chidananda Ullal, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company to challenge the order dated 10-4-1997 in case No. WC.CR. 26/95 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore Division No. 3, Bangalore, insofar as the same related to the fastening of the liability with regard to payment of interest on the award amount. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company is represented by the learned Counsel Sri S.P. Shankar. On the other side, the contesting respondent 1 is represented by Sri C.M. Desai. The respondent 3, the owner of the vehicle is represented by Sri C.M. Monappa. The respondent 2, the Indian Oil Corporation having been served with the notice had remained absent before Court, 3. Sri Shankar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company had taken me through the impugned order insofar as the same related to the payment of the interest on the award amount. The said part is discussed in para (16) of the impugned order. That discussion, ...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Limited, Torangallu, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ382; [2001]122STC631(Kar)
ORDER1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the accused in C.C. No. 146 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hospet, seeking for quashing the above case registered against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act').2. The respondent herein filed a complaint in the Trial Court alleging that the Finance Manager of M/s. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Limited, situated at Torangallu who is accused 2 in the case has issued a cheque dated December 31, 1998 for Rs. 2,00,00,000 towards part payment of arrears of entry tax and the said cheque when presented by the respondent for encashment in the State Bank of Mysore, Hospet Branch, Hospet, on January 4, 1999 has been returned to the respondent by the Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Hospet Branch, Hospet, with the Bank endorsement dated January 12, 1999. It is al...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramaiah Vs. Ramanika Silks (Private) Limited, Cochin
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2694; ILR2001KAR3909
ORDERThe Court1. The petitioner in these revisions questioned the order of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore discharging the accused/respondent under Section 227 read with Section 203 of the Cr. P.C. which was registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. Nos. 20866 of 1997 and 20591 and 20439 of 1998.2. The brief facts are as follows:The respondent herein M/s. Ramanika Silks (Private) Limited has issued cheques in favour of M/s. Mandoth Syndicate for various amounts on different dates. When the cheques came to be presented, it was dishonoured. Thereafter, the petitioner got issued legal notice. As the amounts were not paid, he presented a complaint. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, after recording the sworn statement took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 20866 of 1997 on 5-7-1999, in C.C. No. 20439 of 1998 on 14-4-1998 and i...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office (Karnataka), B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ577; [2002(92)FLR1177]; ILR2002KAR448; 2002(1)KarLJ379; (2002)ILLJ979Kant
The Court1. This appeal is filed by the ESI Corporation to challenge the order dated 1-3-1997 in ESI Application No. 38 of 1995 passed by the ESI Court.2. The appellant-Corporation is represented by the learned Counsel, Sri V. Narasimha Holla, whereas the respondent 1 is represented by the learned Counsel, Sri T. Narayanaswamy and the respondent 2 is represented by the learned Counsel, M/s. Bangalore Law Associates.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri V. Narasimha Holla had taken me through the impugned order under challenge. He found fault with the impugned order passed by the ESI Court on the ground that as on the date of accident on 12-4-1990, the respondent 1-employee was not at all an employee within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the 'ESI Act'). It was also argued by him that the wages of the respondent 1 came to be raised from Es. 1,600/- to Rs. 1,765.14 ps. and that raise came exactly on 1-4-1990 and therefore, it is ...
Tag this Judgment!i.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. Mangala Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant364; ILR2001KAR1860
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. An award was made by theArbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in terms of the arbitration agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. The award was made on 13-2-1997. The said award is sought to be executed by the decree-holder invoking Section 36 of the Act after the period to set aside the award has expired by filing execution petition before the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore within whose jurisdiction the properties of the respondents are situate. When sale proceedings were in progress, the respondents filed I.A.-V contending that the Court before which the execution is levied had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. On that objection being upheld, the execution petition was dismissed. The petitioner challenges the said order. Hence the question has come before this Court to consider the correctness of the finding that the Court below had...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Thippeswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC190; ILR2001KAR1756
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This is a ghastly case where a pregnant bride was set on fire by her husband and ultimately the girl succumbed to the burn injuries.2. In this atrocious bride burning case, the accused may have to go scot-free for the cardinal error committed by the Trial Court in not framing charges under ' Sections 498A and 304B along With Section 302, IPC but framing a charge only under Section 302, IPC.3. As we deal with the facts of the case we cannot but express our anguish that the Trial Court did not frame alternative charges under Sections 498A and 304B in ; spite of ample materials before Court for framing charges under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC.4. We are now necessarily left with this appeal against acquittal for an offence only under Section 302, IPC.5. The State being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court dated 31.12.1994 in S.C. No. 45/1993 in acquitting the accused for an offence under Section 302, IPC has preferred this appeal against acquittal.5a. The pr...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Vs. K. Basha Sab and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1346
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Additional District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal II, Chitradurga in M.V.C. No. 1266 of 1990 dated 7.6.97, the appellant-claimant is before this Court .2. The accident had occurred on 7.8.90 at about 5.30 p.m. near Naraganahalli Siddappa's house at Baramaragara village involving the lorry bearing registration No. CAG 1214 which resulted in injuries as complained of by the claimant.3. The finding of negligence against the driver of the lorry bearing No. CAG 1214 has become final inasmuch as no appeal has been preferred challenging the same by the owner.4. The injury sustained by the claimant- appellant herein is as follows:(1) The left leg of the claimant was crushed.5. The father of the claimant was examined as PW 1 and the doctor who treated the claimant was examined as PW 2, Exhs. P-1 to P-15 were got marked. The wound certificate and the medical case-sheets were at Exhs. P-5...
Tag this Judgment!The Controller of Weights and Measures, Bangalore and Others Vs. Diesa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3816; 2001(5)KarLJ453
The Court1. This appeal is by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1996 passed in O.S. No. 1741 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The parties in this appeal are referred to as arrayed in the Trial Court.2. The plaintiff-respondent firm has filed a suit for declaration that the provisions of Karnataka Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 is not applicable to the platform scale held by its concern and for the consequential relief that the seizure of the platform scale from it so made by the second defendant on 15-3-1985 is illegal and void and also for damages of Rs. 9,039/- from the defendants. The said suit has been resisted by the defendants.3. From the averments of the plaint it is seen that the platform scale was seized by the defendants on 15-3-1985 in exercise of the power under the Karnataka Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). According to the plaintiff the said seizu...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok B. Sureban Vs. Neelavva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ775
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. This is a contractor's appeal directed against the order dated 29.3.1997 in Case No. DWCI:F-158:93 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Dharwad District, Hubli, insofar as the same related to recording of the finding that the respondent No. 6, Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation is entitled to be indemnified of the award (Rs. 78,824) in question as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The appellant contractor is represented by Mr. S.V. Shastri. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the L.Rs. of the deceased were represented by Mr. U.R. Malimath, whereas, the contesting respondent No. 6 the Hubli Dharwad Corporation is represented by Kesvy & Company. Before proceeding further, I feel it appropriate to set out the facts of the case in brief. They are as hereunder:The L.Rs. of the deceased, one Yellappa Soluri Yeleval, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, filed claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, henceforth in brie...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan and Others Vs. Thomas K.V. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1631; 2001(4)KarLJ340
1. Aggrieved by the denial of liability of the Insurance Company on the quantum of compensation granted by the II Additional Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore in MVC No. 771 of 1990, the appellants-claimants are before this Court.2. The point raised in the above appeal preferred by the claimants in MVC No. 771 of 1990 is: Whether the insurance company is liable in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident that took place on 7-5-1990 at 12-30 noon, namely the vehicle bearing No. CNG 6967, resulting in the injuries to the claimants.3. The facts disclose that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the second respondent denied the liability on the ground that the driver had licence only to drive light motor vehicle and the tempo is not a light motor vehicle and consequently, the Insurance Company is not liable. It is not in dispute that as per Ex. P. 3, the extract of RC Book of the Vehicle No. CNG 6967 that the driver is having licence to drive lig...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »