Karnataka Court April 2002 Judgments
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Prema and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC671; ILR2002KAR2490; 2002(5)KarLJ307
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. A learned Single Judge of this Court found that the earlier Division Bench has not considered the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the CPC which enables the cross-objector to take grounds which could have been taken in respect of the findings which are against him and therefore, the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company v. V. Balasubramanyam and Anr., : ILR1990KAR483 relying on the earlier decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. H.N. Rama Prasad and Ors., 1986(2) Kar. L.J. 482 : 1985 ACJ 864 (Kar.) holding that in appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the scope of appeal is limited and the question of quantum cannot be gone into by filing crossrobjections, requires reconsideration. Hence, he referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench vide order dated 22-1-2002.2. Thus vide order dated 1-4-2002 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this reference is placed before us on 8-4-2002.3. The necessary facts lea...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prema and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002ACJ1889; [2002]110CompCas31(Kar)
N.K. Jain, C.J.1.A learned single judge of this court found that the earlier Division Bench has not considered the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which enables the cross objector to take grounds which could have been taken in respect of the findings which are against him and therefore the decision of this court in United India Insurance Co. v. V. Balasubramanyam [1990] ILR Karn 483; [1990] 1 KLJ 104 relying on the earlier decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. H. N. Rama Prasad [1985] ACJ 864 holding that in an appeal filed by the insurance company, the scope of appeal is limited and the question of quantum cannot be gone into by filing cross objections, requires reconsideration. Hence he referred the matter to the Honourable Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench vide order dated January 22, 2002.2. Thus, vide order dated April 1, 2002 passed by the Honourable Chief Justice, this reference is placed before us on April 8, 2002.3. The necessar...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Mercy Chandrashekaran Vs. Controller General of Defence Accounts ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1595; 2002(5)KarLJ467
ORDER1. The petitioner claims to be the widow of one George D. Chandrashekaran. According to petitioner, her husband joined Military Accounts Department on 11-6-1942 and resigned from service in May 1960. The deceased Chandrashekaran was not drawing any pension during his lifetime. He died on 1-8-1989. Seven years after the death of her husband, the petitioner gave a representation dated 21-3-1997 to the second respondent and a representation dated 24-4-2000 to the first respondent, for grant of family pension under the CCS Pension Rules ('Rules' or 'Pensiori Rules' for short). The said request was considered and rejected by the second respondent by communication dated 9-5-1997 and by the first respondent by communication dated 3-5-2000. Her subsequent application dated 26-5-2000 addressed to Controller, Defence Accounts, Bangalore was rejected by letter dated 23-6-2000. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 1725 of 2000, prayi...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Srinivasan Vs. State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR878]; ILR2002KAR2862; 2003(4)KarLJ520; (2002)IIILLJ217Kant
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group, by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties to the lis, it is taken up for final hearing.2. Rule nisi.3. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties to the lis.4. Petitioner was working as an officer in the Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS-II) in the services of the respondent-State Bank of Mysore ('the Bank', for short).5. The Bank has introduced a beneficial scheme for its employee officers to exercise their option to retire from service voluntarily if they so desire. The scheme is known as 'State Bank of Mysore Voluntary Retirement Scheme'. Under the scheme, any employee officer could file an application before the Bank seeking permission to retire from the services of the Bank voluntarily. It is in the discretion of the Bank either to accept the request made by the officer concerned in the application or to reject the same.6. Apart from others, the scheme provides...
Tag this Judgment!A. Muniswamy and anr. Vs. Smt. Selvi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3227
1. This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners/judgment debtors 1 and 2 against the decree holder challenging the orders dated 30.11.2001 on a memo filed by the judgment debtor dated 19.10.2001 in Ex. Case No. 247/99.2. The facts that led to the filing of this revision petition in brief are as under :The respondent herein had filed O.S. No. 7905/95 against the revision petitioners for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- and odd with interest. The said suit ended in a compromise as the compromise petition came to be filed on 10.11.1998. On the very same day the suit was decreed with consent of both the parties. Subsequently, the present execution petition 247/99 came to be filed for recovery of the amount.3. It is also gathered from the arguments of the learned Counsels and also the records that several applications came to be filed by the decree holder and also the judgment debtor in the execution petition. Challenging the said orders revisions were also filed before this Court....
Tag this Judgment!India Lease Development Limited and anr. Vs. Thimmakka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant97; ILR2002KAR4583; 2002(5)KarLJ551
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners.2. This is defendants' revision under Section 115 of the CPC. On their appearance, the defendants filed I.A. No. 2 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act'), requesting the Court for referring the parties to arbitration. Admittedly, the defendants have not filed their written statements so far. According to the Court below, the defendants had not filed the original arbitration agreement or the certified copy thereof along with I.A. No. 2. By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the interlocutory application on two grounds. Firstly, for the reason that no application under Section 8 of the Act is entertainable unless the defendants file their first statement on the substance of the dispute. Secondly, that as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 8, neither the original arbitration agreement nor a duly certified copy thereof has been filed with the application.3...
Tag this Judgment!C. Dinakar Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ6
ORDER1. In this PIL, when the matter was not listed before Court nor any notice of admission was issued to the respondents, a Press item was published in Indian Express on 21-11-2001 as 'Dinakar files PIL against City Police' and in Deccan Herald on 22-11-2001. When the matter came up for admission on 22-11-2001, the petitioner-C. Dinakar was present before Court and this Court asked the petitioner as to how the matter came in the press. He stated that the contents of the writ petition were not published at his instance and further sought time to file affidavit within two days. An affidavit was filed on 26-11-2001 stating that he has not spoken to any member or correspondent of the media or newspaper and no information was given about this petition by him to the press. Office was directed to issue notices immediately to the concerned correspondents of Indian Express and Deccan Herald to show cause and to explain as to how they have published the contents of the writ petition without it...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nanjamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2795; 2002(4)KarLJ6
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The appellants in this intra-Court appeal are the legal heirs of one late Channappa. The controversy concerns claim of occupancy rights made by late Channappa under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), in respect of land measuring 5 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 126 and 5 acres in Sy. No. 130/1 of Holakallu Village, Guloor Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District.2. The relevant facts to the extent of those are not in controversy may be noticed in brief The land in question originally belonged to one B.R. Banappa. He died on 13-10-1971. He under a Will dated 10-3-1961 bequeathed the aforesaid lands to D. Ramaiah (respondent 3), who happens to be late Banappa's son's (respondent 4) son-in-law. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed a petition in P. and S.C. No. 55 of 1976 for grant of letters of administration with a copy of the above Will annexed thereto before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bangalore, who after due enquiry granted le...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanusimha Y.P. and ors. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR635]; (2002)IIILLJ705Kant
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner, in the first writ petition, is a unit of Larsen and Toubro Ltd., which is the principal employer. The petitioners in the connected writ petitions are labour contractors who have obtained licences under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They are engaged by the unit of the principal employer. The first respondent-Labor Enforcement Officer (Central) is the Inspector appointed under Section 28 of the Act. He inspected the unit and found certain lapses on the part of the petitioners punishable under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. He, therefore, lodged complaints before the jurisdictional magistrate praying to take cognizance of the offences and to impose fine. The learned magistrate issued summons to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking to hold that the 'appropriate Government' is the State Government and not the Central Government in ...
Tag this Judgment!Shamsaheb Neerasaheb Multani Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ526; I(2003)DMC156
M.P. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the appellant's learned Advocate and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on merits. Once again, though technically this criminal appeal concerns an order of conviction dated 3rd December 2001, effectively one needs to take note of certain other facts, the first of them being that the incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 17th October 1992. The appellant before us is the husband and the allegation against him was that he had severely assaulted his wife by the name of Tanima and that as a result of the injuries she died. The case has gone through several phases insofar as the accused was once acquitted, thereafter he came to be convicted by the High Court and on an appeal to the Supreme Court, the conviction of the High Court was set aside on the ground that he was originally charged with an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the High Court had convicted him of the offence punishable under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »