Karnataka Court April 2002 Judgments
V.S. Gowdar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: I(2004)ACC69
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal is before us on a reference made in the following circumstances:In Gulam Khader and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Limited and Anr. 2001 (1) Kr. L.J. 340, a Division Bench of this Court held that a higher multiplier would be applicable for determination of loss of dependency in claims arising out of motor accidents that have occurred after the commencement of Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1994. For the claims arising out of accidents prior to the said amendment, the multiplier could not go beyond 16 as held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. : AIR1994SC1631 . Another Division Bench of this Court comprising H.N. Tilhari and K.R. Prasad Rao, JJ., expressed doubts about the correctness of the said view. Their Lordships were of the opinion that there was no real justification for limiting the benefit of the higher multiplier to claims that arise out of accident...
Tag this Judgment!Rosy Kurian Kannanaikal Vs. Joseph Verghese Cheeran
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC79; ILR2002KAR1831; 2004(3)KarLJ75
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.A Full Bench of this Court not agreeing with the view taken by an earlier Full Bench decision in the case of Jayakumar v. Smt. Harriet Nirmala and observing that 'there are number of reference petitions pending in this Court which shall now have to await the decision of the larger Bench', has referred this matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench vide its order dated 15-12-2000.2. As per the direction of the Chief Justice vide order dated 8-3-2002, the matter has been placed before this larger Bench of five Judges with advance notice on 15-3-2002. The points referred for consideration, are:(i) Whether a reference to High Court for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage, under Sections 17 and 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869, is necessary where such decree is granted by a Family Court, under the Family Courts Act, 1984?(ii) Whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court under Section 19 of the Fami...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vithabai G. Ghodaka and anr. Vs. the United Western Bank Limited, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas360(Kar); ILR2002KAR2689; 2002(3)KarLJ417
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This application is by the impleading applicant Sri Mukesh under Order 1, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC to implead as respondent 3 in the present proceedings,2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the Ex. P. No. 229 of 1988, he purchased the property of the judgment-debtor by depositing an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- and also that a Sale Certificate has been issued in his favour. As against the Sale Certificate issued, the petitioner has filed C.R.P. No. 4029 of 2001 in which the impleading applicant has been arrayed as respondent 3 in the said proceedings. Therefore, he is a proper and necessary party in this petition, as he has an interest in the property. Accordingly, prayed to allow the application by impleading him as respondent 3.3. The petitioner filed objection statement stating that the impleading applicant ^as not a party in the execution proceedings and further to the application filed before the lower Court for setting aside t...
Tag this Judgment!Neelavva and ors. Vs. Mahantayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ668
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit O.S. No. 233 of 2001 against the petitioner defendants. Respondents obtained an order injunction. Defendant-petitioners filed an application for vacating the injunction granted in favour of the respondents. The same remains not considered on the ground that the respondent did not pay the Court fee. It is in these circumstances, petitioners are challenging the order dated 13-2-2002 and 21-2-2002. 3. In these circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it proper to dispose of the petition with a direction to the learned Judge to consider and dispose of the application filed by the defendants-petitioners on or before 20-4-2002. All other contentions of either parties are left open. 4. Petition stands disposed of in the above manner. Parties to bear their respective costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev S/O Narayan Naik Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr. Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant338; ILR2003KAR1724
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The complaint in this case is that the doors of Temple of justice is closed to the poor agriculturists courtesy Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1958 under Section 7(2)(d).2. The facts in W.P. No. 38076/1992 are as under :Mahadev Narayan Naik is in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No. 22/1 for more than 50 years. The said land belongs to Hanumanth Tippayya Naik and his family. Adverse possession is claimed. The 2nd respondent Hanumanth Tippayya Naik obstructed the enjoyment of the suit lands and hence the petitioner was compelled to file a suit for in O.S. No. 47/90. The petitioner has paid the Court-fee in terms of Section 7(2)(a). The respondent-defendant entered appearance and contested the matter. They raised an issue with regard to Court-fee in terms of Section 7(2)(d) and not in terms of Section 7(2)(a). The Trial Judge accepted the contention of the defendant. An unsuccessful petition was filed in this Court by the petitioner. In the l...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Gangarangaiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1871; 2002(5)KarLJ178
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. A learned Single Judge of this Court has made this reference vide order dated 5-3-2001 to a larger Bench in view of the conflicting judgments of two Division Benches, in Writ Appeal Nos. 2765 to 2905 of 2000, DD:. 23-1-2001, whereby the State and other authorities were directed to consider the cases of the employees who have put in service of ten years or more, continuously, for regularization in terms of the direction/orders passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Association v. State of Karnataka, : (1990)IILLJ318SC and State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Karnataka Casual and Daily Rated Workers Union, Hubli, 2002(3) Kar. L.J. 518 : ILR 2001 Kar. 1178 wherein it was observed that 'such judgment of the co-ordinate Bench is clearly 'per incuriam' in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in cases State of Punjab and Ors. v. Surinder Kumar and Ors., : [1992]194ITR434(SC) and Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Hotline Shares and Securities Limited, Hubli and ors. Vs. Dinesh Ganes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas360b(Kar); 2002CriLJ3291; ILR2002KAR3174; 2002(3)KarLJ380
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Heard Sri K. Appa Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows:The respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. against the petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation that in the business transactions, the petitioners were due certain amount and the second petitioner issued a cheque on behalf of the first petitioner-company bearing No. 885572, dated 12-11-1999 drawn on United Western Bank Limited, Hubli for a sum of Rs. 6,29,369/-. When the respondent presented the cheque for realisation to the Vysya Bank, Gadag Branch, it was reported on 27-11-1999 with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. On information being received on 29-12-1999, the respondent issued a notice on 11-1-2000 which was replied by the second petitioner on 31-1-2000. Howev...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vasu N. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ946; ILR2002KAR2711; 2002(5)KarLJ290
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment and separate award passed in M.V.C. Nos. 348 to 350 of 1992, dated 29-10-1999 passed by MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.2. The essential facts of the case necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows:The Tribunal by order dated 29-10-1999 has disposed off the claim petitions filed in M.V.C. Nos. 348 to 350 of 1992 by awarding compensation of Rs. 19,265/-, 1,24,700/- and Rs. 16,400/- by holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. CTX 9556 belonging to the first respondent. It was contended by the Insurance Company that the driver of the said lorry did not hold an effective driving licence to drive the lorry on the date of accident (11-1-1992). The said contention was negatived by the Tribunal in its judgment and the Tribunal held that respondents 1 and 2, owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation in all the petitions and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanimoly Ramakrishnan Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant261; 2002(4)KarLJ140
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. In all these writ petitions the common prayer of the petitioners is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the 1st year M.B.B.S. examination scheduled to commence in April 2002.2. The facts which are common in all these petitions, briefly stated, are as follows:The petitioners are all 1st year M.B.B.S. students who had been unsuccessful in clearing all the subjects of the 1st year M.B.B.S. despite availing of all the four attempts that are permitted under the statute. The position that Regulation 7 of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997 ('the Regulations' for short), only permits of four attempts, provided they are completed in three years from the date of enrolment, is also not disputed by the petitioner. It is also not disputed that regulations are mandatory in nature. Despite this admitted position, the petitioners crave for permission to appear in the 1st year M.B.B.S...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Mrs. K. Chandrakala Bhakta and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas681(Kar); ILR2002KAR3323
ORDER1. On the request of first respondent as principal debtor and respondents 2, 3 and K. Prakash Bhakta (of whom respondents 4 to 8 are the legal heirs) as co-obligant/guarantors, the petitioner-Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,50,000.00 in November, 1980 for the purpose of establishing and starting a nursing home (Bhakta's Nursing Home) by the first respondent. Respondents I to 3 and K. Prakash Bhakta (for convenience, referred to jointly as the 'Borrowers') agreed to secure the repayment of the loan to be advanced to the first respondent by equitable mortgage of the suit 'A' schedule property (Sy. No. 128/37 measuring 73 cents at Shivalli village, Gundibail Ward, Udupi Taluk, situated within Udupi Municipal Limits). 2. The respondents executed a loan agreement dated 16.3.1981 containing the terms andconditions of the loan and first respondent availed the loan on 16.3.1981 and, subsequently, the Bank alleges that the borrowers agreed to repay the said loan in certain instalments betw...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »