Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(1)KarLJ287
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner-Narayanappa is before me challenging an order of the second respondent passed in Appeal No. 38 of 2001 at Annexure-E. Petitioner in the writ petition states that he is a transport operator in the State of Karnataka having his place of business at Bangalore. He has a branch office at Hyderabad. He is the registered owner of vehicle bearing No. KA-05-5553 bearing Chassis No. RTE 291855 and Engine No. RTE 17275. He became owner of the vehicle on 3-4-1998. He has purchased this vehicle from one Kalpana. He is operating this vehicle on the strength of the special permit issued by the RTO. R.C. is at Annexure-A.2. Petitioner also has purchased another vehicle bearing No. MED 6489 from one Rajendra Pandit Singh and others and has got transferred to his name on 6-12-1991. The vehicle was reassigned the registration number as AP-13-T-1008, Chassis No. ALB-110072 and Engine No. ALI 90505, not covered by any permit. He was paying idle tax at Hyderabad. On 24-5-2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR2431
ORDERGuru Rajan, J.1. The appellant defendant is challenging a final decree dated 6.6.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranebennur in O.S. No. 142 of 1988.2. Respondent plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 142 of 1988. A compromise petition was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 6.8.1990 by the parties. According to the averments in the appeal memo, plaintiff had expired on 30,11.1994. It is further averred in the appeal memo that the plaintiff did not act upon the compromise petition. The appellant complains that without hearing the parties and without considering as to whether a final decree is passed in the changed circumstances or not, the learned Judge has chosen to pass the impugned order. This order is challenged.3. Notice was issued. Respondents have entered appearance. Appellant while reiterating the facts and grounds, raises a plea that whenever a final decree is drawn in terms of the preliminary decree, a notice is necessary so that the judge is info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : III(2004)ACC71
S.B. Majage, J.1. The appellant filed a petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Belgaum, claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- stating that her son, viz., Mahesh Naik, aged 20 years, who was working as cleaner on vehicle bearing No. KA22-5631 belonging to the respondent No. 1 on monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- with Bhatta of Rs. 1,000/- per month, met with an Accident on 24th August, 2000 near National Restaurant near Tumkur when said vehicle was dashed by another vehicle bearing No. KA 02-D 7779 coming from opposite direction-and later died while taking treatment and hence, she, being the mother of deceased, is entitled to compensation. The respondent No. 1 owner of the vehicle did not appear before the Commissioner in spite of service of notice and hence he was proceeded ex parte. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, which was wrongly impleaded earlier, did not prefer to file any objections. However...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003ACJ2127; [2003(96)FLR740]; 2003(2)KarLJ301
S.B. Majage, J.1. The appellant filed a petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Belgaum, claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs stating that her son viz., Mahesh Naik, aged 20 years, who was working as Cleaner on vehicle bearing No. KA-22/5631 belonging to the first respondent on monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- with bhatta of Rs. 1,000/- per month, met with an accident on 24-8-2000 near National Restaurant near Tumkur when said vehicle was dashed by another vehicle bearing No. KA-02/D-7779 coming from opposite direction and later died while taking treatment and hence, she, being the mother of deceased, is entitled to compensation. The first respondent-owner of the vehicle did not appeal-before the Commissioner in spite of service of notice and hence, he was proceeded ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company, which was wrongly impleaded earlier, did not prefer to file any objections. However, third respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR77]; ILR2002KAR5256; 2003(5)KarLJ285
S.B. Majage, J.1. The first respondent had filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs stating that on 4-2-1995 at about 10.30 a.m. when he was travelling from Puttur Town to his house at Nehru Nagar in autorickshaw bearing No. CNO 8939 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the present appellant, the third respondent-driver of said autorickshaw drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a scooter coming from opposite direction and turtle to roadside resulting in accident causing injuries, including fractures to him and hence, he suffered on account of that and entitled to compensation. The second respondent-owner and third respondent-driver of the said vehicle, though appeared before the Tribunal, did not file any written statement. Written statement/objections have been filed by the appellant-insurer only denying its liability to indemnify the second respondent. However, after trial, the Tribunal allowed the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ375
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellant-IAO both on I.A. Nos. I and II of 2002 as well as on the merits of the case in order to ascertain whether it is a fit case for admission.2. I.A. No. I of 2002 is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 74 days in filing the appeal, which is supported by an affidavit.3. I.A. No. II of 2002 is an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC to condone the delay of 87 days in refiling the appeal, which is also supported by an affidavit.4. I have carefully perused the statement of facts made in the affidavits filed in support of I.A. Nos. I and II of 2002, in the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate and I find that the delay in filing as well as in refiling the appeal has been reasonably and satisfactorily explained on behalf of the appellant. Hence, accepting the explanation offered by the appellant-LAO, the delay in filing as well as in refili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Padmaraj, J. 1. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellant-LAO both on I.A.Nos. I/2002 and II/2002 as well as on the merits of the case in order to ascertain whether it is a fit case for admission. 2. I.A.No.I/2002 is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 74 days in filing the appeal, which is supported by an affidavit. 3. I.A.No. II/2002 is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 87 days in refiling the appeal, which is also supported by an affidavit. 4. I have carefully perused the statement of facts made in the affidavits filed in support of I.A.No. I/2002 and II/2002, in the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate and I find that the delay in filing as well as in refiling the appeal has been reasonably and satisfactorily explained on behalf of the appellant. Hence, accepting the explanation offered by the appellant - LAO, the delay in filing as well as in refiling the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2004]134STC270(Kar)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. These petitions, which have been filed under Section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'), are directed against the order dated July 31, 2001 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.2. The petitioners are dealers in are cantus. Their place of business is situated at Bhimasamudra town in the district of Chitradurga. They are duly registered under the provisions of the KST Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and they make purchases from the registered dealers as well as unregistered dealers.3. For the assessment year in question, i.e., 1994-95, the petitioners by relying on the notification' dated March 31, 1984, claimed exemption in respect of sales of are cantus, which they had admittedly sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, but the same was denied by the assessing officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. The reason for denial of exemption was that the stocks of are c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1422; 2003(2)KarLJ630
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr. P.O. for grant of bail. The petitioner along with other accused is charge-sheeted for committing offence punishable under Sections 399 and 400 of the IPC in S.C. No. 504 of 2002 on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. According to the prosecution case, on 7-7-2002 at 8.00 p.m. the Inspector of Upparpet Police Station receives a credible information about the attempt to commit robbery of the passengers by certain persons in Tulasi Park area. Accordingly, the Inspector with his staff goes to the scene. He finds 8 to 10 persons holding deadly weapons and they were discussing the plan for robbery of the passengers of the bus. The petitioner is one of them. The accused persons are apprehended and the deadly weapons are recovered.2. Sri V.Y. Kumar, High Court Government Pleader filed objections and opposes the bail petition.3. The police officials who go for investigation are not merel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ796; ILR2002KAR5340; 2003(2)KarLJ578
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12-8-1999, passed in S.C. No. 76 of 1997 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted A. 1 and A. 2 for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life with fine and default clause. By the same judgment, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A. 3 to A. 8 of the offences with which they stood charged. While A.1 and A. 2 have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 1999, the State has assailed the judgment of acquittal passed, acquitting A. 3 to A. 8 in Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 1999. We have taken up both the appeals together for consideration by the consent of learned Counsels on both sides, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The Circle Inspector of Police of Devadurga Police Station laid a charge-sheet against eight accused persons alleging the off...
Tag this Judgment!