Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant220; 2004(1)KarLJ413
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. Sri Rukkoji Rao is directed to take notice f6r the respondent.2. The petitioner in this case was retained by the respondent-Bank as their counsel. The petitioner prepared the plaint and filed it before the trial Court. At the time of filing 50% of the scheduled fee and other expenses was paid by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner. Before the conclusion of the trial the respondent-Bank made an application before the Court for terminating the vakalath of the petitioner in this case. The trial Court granted the request. However on the question of the advocate's fee, directed that the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th of the scheduled fee and directed return of the balance of excess received from the bank. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed.3. The trial Court has relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in C.S. Venkatasubramanian v. State Bank of India, : AIR1997SC2329 . In the said decision, the counsel whose vakalath was terminated had conducted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2003)ACC235; 2003(1)KarLJ501
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.2. The principal ground canvassed in this appeal is that the Tribunal was wrong in having disqualified the claimants from claiming compensation in the normal manner prescribed by law on the solitary ground that the first petitioner-wife had been given a job on compassionate basis as a clerk and that in view of this position, she was not eligible tothe compensation that would normally have been computed. There is neither rationality nor justification for this finding and consequently, we have no option except to set it aside and to compute the compensation that the claimants would be entitled to in keeping with the material on record. Having taken into account the salary, the age of the claimants and the rest of the material on record, the aggregate compensation works out to Rs. 3,02,660/- which is rounded off by us to Rs. 3,05,000/-.3. The Corporation's learned Counsel has vehemently submitted that in the matter of c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ421
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Advocates representing both the parties.2. The learned Government Advocate submitted before us that the enhancement from Rs. 33,000/- per acre to approximately Rs. 1,78,000/-per acre is extremely steep and that it is totally unjustifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Among others, he has demonstrated before us that the Reference Court has not given any detailed reasoning. We must be fair to the learned Judge that he has briefly set out the grounds on which he has enhanced the compensation.3. Though, in keeping with the Supreme Court decisions we do not approve of the unit being altered from acre to square foot, the real issue before us is as to whether we are required to interfere with the enhancement or not?4. The learned Government Advocate submitted before us that the Land Acquisition Officer himself has been very generous while fixing the compensation as the average of the sales in that area at that time worked out to Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003ACJ1397; 2003(3)KarLJ14
1. We have heard the appellant's learned Advocate as also the respondents' learned Advocates. At the very outset, the appellant's learned Counsel has assailed the judgment of the Tribunal which has taken cognizance of the fact that admittedly the deceased Dollegowda had fallen off from the top of the moving bus No. CTX 8688. There are conflicting versions with regard to what had exactly happened, the appellant's learned Advocate submitting that the deceased had climbed on to the roof of the bus to remove the luggage and that as often happens, the driver had just sped away, as a result of which, the deceased who was on top, fell off, sustained fatal injuries and died. The Tribunal has relied on the evidence of P.W. 2 who claims to be one of the persons travelling along with the deceased on the roof of the bus. He also happens to be the complainant or informant and the First Information Report has been produced wherein he has stated that there were about twenty persons on the top of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005ACJ1359; AIR2003Kant258; 2004(1)KarLJ498
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the appellants' learned Counsel as also the respondents' learned Counsel in these group of appeals. At the very outset, it is necessary for us to indicate the righteous indignation of this Court with regard to the total and thoroughly illegal practice that is rampant on the roads in the State whereby throwing caution to the winds and with total disregard for the elementary concept of safety, any number of children are indiscriminately loaded on to two wheelers whether it is in front, in the arms or minor children of different ages as a result of which the provisions of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act are breached and disregarded with total callousness. This Court has, times without number brought it to the notice of police and the Traffic Control Authorities that necessary steps be taken to enforce the provisions of Section 128 of the M.V. Act which reads as follows : '128. Safety measures for drivers and pillion riders-- (1) No driver of a two-w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(1)KarLJ590
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner is the landlady and respondent is the tenant. The landlady filed eviction petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act seeking eviction of tenant on the ground that she requires the petition schedule premises for her bona fide use and occupation. Subsequently, eviction was also sought under Clause (p) of Section 21(1) of the Act on the ground that the tenant acquired another premises. The tenant resisted the claim of the landlady and sought for dismissal of the petition. Both the parties adduced evidence and produced the documents. Upon appreciation of the material brought on record, the Trial Court by its order dated 6-8-1999 dismissed the petition holding that the landlady did not prove her requirement and satisfactory evidence has not come on record to pass eviction order under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act. The landlady has filed this revision against the said order. 2. Smt. Rajeshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(4)KarLJ510
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition who was employed as a Peon in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), in this petition has called in question the correctness of the order dated 18th September, 1997, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B to this petition terminating his services from the employment of the Corporation.2. The facts in brief which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as hereunder:In response to the application invited by the Corporation for appointment to the post of Peon, the petitioner made an application. On the basis of the performance of the petitioner, both in the written examination and in the interview conducted by the Corporation, the petitioner having been found suitable to the post, he was selected; and an appointment order dated 20th March, 1997 was issued to the petitioner, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to the petition. It is the c...
Tag this Judgment!