Karnataka Court February 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Anil Kamalakar Shirodkar Vs. Dudhappa Santu Patil and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5013
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The Revision filed against the order on LA. XI in OS No. 22 of 1995, by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Belgaum. After the conclusion of the evidence in the suit, the plaintiff made an application under LA. XI for appointment of a Commission under Order 26 Rule 9, CPC to appoint a competent surveyor to survey and measure the property in RS 6/3D which is the subject matter of the suit. The suit is filed for injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The Trial Court has allowed the request and appointed a city surveyor as the Commissioner to survey the property and to prepare a sketch and to submit a report.2. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the revision to interfere with the order in question which is a discretionary order passed by on the basis of material available before the Trial Court. In a suit for injunction, when there is contest between t...
Madhu, J. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ346
1. Transfer from one institution to another is not encouraged by either the M.C.I. or the affiliating University. The rules provide for transfer only in case of hardship and in exceptional circumstances. What distinguishes the present case from the rest is that a request even for mutual transfer has not evoked any response from the respondents. In these proceedings they oppose the prayer for transfer on the ground that the request for the same was made late no matter only by ten days. Was that really so is the only question which falls for consideration in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner and respondent 5 were selected on the basis of a competitive examination for admission to undergo a Diploma Course in gynecology and obstetrics. While the petitioner was allotted to M.R. Medical College at Gulbarga, respondent 4, was allotted to Mysore Medical College at Mysore. Pursuant to the admission orders issued by the Directorate of Medical College, the petitioner joined a college ...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Swaroop theatre and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ737Kant
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed in C.C. 180/1992 by the III J.M.F.C. Court, Belgaum.2. The 1st accused is the cinema theatre and accused Nos. 2 to 1 are members of the management of the theatre. According to the prosecution version, the Inspector of Employees' State Insurance visited the talkies on May 30, 1991, June 6, 1-991, June 10,1991 and June 21, 1991 and called for production of attendance register, wage register, account books and ledgers maintained for the period from January 1, 1987 to May 31, 1991. It is their contention that under Sections 44 and 45(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, referred to as 'the Act'), the Inspector has authority to enter into the premises of any establishment or factory and make enquiries about the eligibility of the establishment for compliance of the provisions of the Act. The accused persons despiteissuance of sufficient opportunity, failed to produce ...
Hindustan Electro Technology Private Limited Vs. Prabhakar Swaminathan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR98]; (2002)IILLJ365Kant
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. Aggrieved against the directions issued by the single Judge to the appellant, which is a private limited company, constituted under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacture of Electro Technical and Electronic Components, the appellant has come up in appeal on the short ground that the appellant not being the 'State', local or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was not maintainable against it. Facts. - The Writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 1') was appointed as a drilling machine operator by the appellant on May 11, 1991. He was confirmed in service on October 13, 1994. The appellant served a show-cause notice on respondent No. 1 dated November 27, 1998, alleging that he and other workers had struck work with effect from October 20, 1998, and as such the appellant was contemplating to take appropriate action agai...
Joint Director of Public Instructions and anr. Vs. B.V. Suvarna and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC128; II(2002)ACC50; 2002ACJ128
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal preferred against the judgment and award made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Labour Officer, Mandya in L.M. (WCA) C.R. 69 of 1992-93 awarding compensation to the respondents herein in a sum of Rs. 78,824 along with costs and interest.2. The appellants herein are the respondents in the original proceedings. The respondents in the present appeal who are the claimants made a claim for compensation against the appellants for death of one Srikanta kumar who was employed as a stipendiary teacher in Book an care Government School. Deceased was working as teacher in the said school for past 12 years. He died of renal failure and heart attack on account of high blood pressure he was suffering. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased. They contend that on account of the pressure and tension of work the deceased had to meet with unfortunate death while in service on 30.3.1990.3. After going through the impugned judgment of the W...
State of Karnataka Vs. Irappa Dhareppa Hosamani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3566
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered in Special Case No. 47/92 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The respondent in this appeal along with one Ramanna Timmaji Kulkarni was charge sheeted before the trial Court for committing offences punishable under Sections 353, 323 read with 34, I.P.C. and Section 3(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, referred to as the Act).2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11-2-1992, at 7.00 a.m., in Basavangalli of Gokak Town, Balappa Kallimani, Katigal Channaya, Yellappa Basarkatti, Lokayya Basavalingaiah Hiremath, Irappa Nagappa Simpri, Shivayogi Shigihalli and Kantappa Badami, all being employees in this Gokak Town Municipality, as public servants in discharge of their duties, had directed the accused not to proceed with the illegal construction of a staircase. The accused said to have abused the complaina...
Parvathamma and anr. Vs. General Manager, South Central Railways and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC570
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The claimant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition for compensation in M.V.C. 972/1997 on the ground that the railway engine which is involved in the accident is not a motor vehicle. Holding that the railway -engine is not a motor vehicle, the Tribunal has chosen to dismiss the claim on preliminary issue in the light of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. United India Insurance Company Limited (1977) 8 SCC 683, which is as follows:Under Section 13 of the Railways Act no statutory duties are imposed directly on the Railway Administration to erect gates and employ watchmen, etc., at level-crossing if railway is cutting across a public road. The section on the other hand only confers a power on the Central Government to issue a requisition to the Railway Administration, i.e., the General Managers or the Railway Companies (if any) to take steps as per Section 13. Obviously, if the Central Government does not think fit to exercise that power ...
Taxi Owners' And Drivers' Association Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC748
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.1. Constitutional validity of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Amendment Act, 2000 has been assailed in these writ petitions insofar as the same has abolished the distinction between motor taxi cabs and motor cabs and brought both types of vehicles under one head for the levy of motor vehicle tax. The challenge to the amendment proceeds primarily on the ground that motor cabs are vehicles distinctly different from motor taxi cabs, which distinction had been recognised by the Legislature by providing a lesser rate of tax for motor taxi cabs in comparison to motor cabs. Item 4(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 as the same stood before the impugned amendment reads as under:4. Motor vehicles other than those mentioned in Items 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 plying for hire and used for transport ofpassengers.--(1) Vehicles permitted to carry (excluding driver).--(a)Notmore than three passengers (auto-rickshaw cab)55.00(b)Notmore than five passengers (moto...
Annappa Gangappa Kumbar and anr. Vs. C. Subramanyam and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC119; 2002ACJ728
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. M.F.A. No. 2572 of 1994 arises out of M.V.C. No. 721 of 1990. M.F.A. No. 2596 of 1994 arises out of M.V.C. No. 722 of 1990.2. The two appeals arise out of the common judgment rendered by Second Additional District Judge cum III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwad in M.V.C. Nos. 721 and 722 of 1990. Along with the said cases there were other three claims which came to be decided by common judgment. In M.V.C. No. 721 of 1990 claim is made by the parents of the deceased one Channabasappa who was a boy aged 6 years at the time of accident. In M.V.C. No. 722 of 1990, the father of the deceased Channabasappa has made the claim, seeking compensation for the personal injuries sustained in the motor accident that occurred on 14.2.1990 at 5.30 p.m., near Kamadod Cotton Spinning Mill on P.B. Road, Ranebennur. The goods truck bearing registration No. TDW 6949 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against a Tempo bearing No. MEH 4045 and caused on...
D. K. Abdul Khader and Others Vs. Union of India and Others[Overruled] Overruled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1809; 2001(2)KarLJ534
ORDER1. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought for grant of following reliefs in their favour, in the circumstances of the case. The reliefs read as under.-(a) declare that the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the rules framed thereunder are void by reason of being violative of the Constitution of India and beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament; (b) the Debt Recovery Tribunal for Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh established at Bangalore City as being void; (c) the scheme of the Act as unreasonable and unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. And by issue of writs of mandamus, Certiorarl and other appropriate writs, orders and directions; (d) direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to give effect to the Act; (e) quash the notification vide Annexure-A, dated 30-11-1994 constituting the Debt Recovery Tribunal for Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh at Bangalore City vide Annexure-A and also the order dated 29...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »