Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2442; 2004(5)KarLJ338
ORDERS - MEANING OF - HELD, The term 'Void' is used referring to contracts or orders which can be ignored with impunity by those who are parties to it - The term 'Voidable' is used referring to contracts or orders which may be enforced until set aside.Orders of Courts have to be obeyed unless and until theyare set aside in appeal/revision. Alternatively in anyproceedings for execution or in a collateral proceedingswhere an order is sought to be enforced or relied on, it ispossible for a party to establish that the order is null andvoid. Then the Court considering the matter, if satisfied, willhold that the order is null and void and therefore notexecutable or enforceable. In this case, the order of evictiondated 6.8.1996 has been confirmed by the revisional Courtby order dated 18.11.1996 which in turn has been confirmedby order dated 18.12.1996 of this Court. These orders arenot set aside. They have not been declared or held to benull and void in any proceedings. Therefore the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2006)BC58; [2005]125CompCas109(Kar); 2004(7)KarLJ269; [2004]54SCL278(Kar)
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The appellant being aggrieved by the common order dated 28-6-2001 passed in AC No. 48/1995 and 50/1999, on the file of the VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, CCH-11 ('the Civil Court'), has filed these appeals under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('the Act').2. The facts of the ease in brief are as follows :The appellant's grand father by name Sri S.K. Narasimha Murthy was the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing corporation No. 13, 11th Main Road, 17th 'A' Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed in the year 1937. The said S.K. Narasimha Murthy transferred, by way of gift, the said immovable property in favour'of his wife Smt. Nagamma under a registered deed of gift executed on 5-8-1997. In a family arrangement that took place in the year 1957, the immovable property fell to the share of the appellant, then, a minor represented by his father S.N. Narasinga Rao, natural guardian.3. On 27-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2004Kant361; ILR2004KAR3207; 2004(5)KarLJ207
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. The Union of India, Passport Officer and Assistant Passport Officer, Bangalore, have has filed these appeals against the order dated 5.7.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 37152/2000 C/w 7351/2001 setting aside the impugned orders Annexure-H & K dated 7.7.2000 and the letter dated 13.10.2000, Annexure-F dated 18.7.2000 and Annexure-G the letter dated 28.11.2000 issued by the 2nd respondent, and directing the respondents to apply the earlier policy which had been existing prior to 24.7.1992.2. The above Writ Petitions were filed by the respondent-M/s. Eskay Tours & Travels, which is a travelling agent dealing in passport matters, being aggrieved by the formulation of policy decision and the issuance of Annexure-F dated 18.7.2000 by the 1st appellant. The respondent challenged the act of the authority restricting the acceptance of the applications for issuance of passports from the recognised travelling agent, as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005ACJ479; 2004(5)KarLJ7
R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Respondent herein was the driver of lorry bearing Registration No. CAM-105 of which second appellant is the owner and first appellant is the insurer. Respondent sustained an employment injury on 4-2-1996 when driving the said lorry. He sustained serious injuries to the right leg (comminuted fracture of middle and lower one-third of right fibula, oblique fracture of midshaft of right tibia, fracture of head of left fibula, fracture of lower pole of right patella and oblique comminuted fracture of distal shaft of second metatarsal).2. The petitioner filed a claim petition (W.C. No. 4 of 1996) under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short), praying for award of Rupees Three lakhs as compensation, in respect of the said injuries. In the claim petition the respondent (also referred to as the 'workman') averred that he was aged 35 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month apart from Rs. 25/- per day as batta, at the time of acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR836]; ILR2004KAR2460; 2004(7)KarLJ281; (2004)IIILLJ1039Kant
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. A common-question of law arises for consideration in all these cases which were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. The question precisely is whether conveyance allowance paid by the Management to its employees is a wage within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the State Employees Insurance Act so as to entitle the Corporation to demand contribution under the said Act. The ESI Courts have taken the view that the payment of allowance is a wage especially when the same is under a settlement arrived at between the employees and the Management. Aggrieved by the said view, the Corporation had filed M.F.As.No. 2251, 2657, 2655, 132, 3594 and 2240/2001 interalia contending that the payment of conveyance allowance was not a part of the wage as defined under the Act and therefore the Management were not entitled to seek exclusion of employees whose wage would go beyond the prescribed limit by clubbing the payment made on account of conveyance al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2005)ACC304; 2005ACJ992; ILR2004KAR3268; 2004(5)KarLJ321
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This is a claimant's Appeal against the judgment and award dated 15.9.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chitradurga, in MVC No. 1397 of 1992.2. When the appellant and his wife Vijaya kumari were proceeding in a car, from Goa to Bangalore, on 21.5.1992, a lorry bearing No. TN-28-2853, coming from the opposite direction, being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. As a result of the head-on collision, Vijaya kumari sustained serious injuries. She was taken to a Hospital at Davangere and later to NIMHANS, Bangalore, where she died on the same day at about 10.00 p.m. The Appellant filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 37,05,857.00. The driver, owner and insurer of the lorry were impleaded as respondents 1, 2 and 3. The owner and insurer of the car were impleaded as respondents 4 and 5. The petition was resisted by respondents 2 to 5.3. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues regarding negligence of the driver of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2005)DMC21; ILR2004KAR4987; 2004(5)KarLJ53
1. The appellant is the husband. The appellant filed a petition under Section 13(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the 'Act'), before the Court of the II Additional Family Court Judge, Bangalore City (for short, the 'Family Court'), for a decree of divorce. The said petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 27th November, 1999 by the Family Court. Hence, this appeal by the husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.2. The facts stated by the appellant in his petition under Section 13(l)(ia) and (ib) of the Act, to put it briefly, are as follows:The appellant married the respondent on 5-3-1989 in Bangalore according to Hindu custom and rites and, after the marriage, they lived in Bangalore and out of the wedlock, a child was born on 13-4-1990. At the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent were residing in Bangalore. Four to five months after marriage, the respondent started going to the parents' house two to three days in a we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(5)KarLJ525
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. These writ appeals arise out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants have been dismissed and the demand raised against them upheld. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:2. The appellants are carrying on business in the manufacture of Rectified Spirit in the distilleries established by them for that purpose. The spirit manufactured by the appellants is almost entirely used for the manufacture and bottling of arrack which is in turn regulated by the Karnataka Excise (Manufacture and Bottling of Arrack) Rules, 1987. Apart from the said Rules, the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1967 also makes several provisions regulating allotment of Rectified Spirit, its transportation, storage etc., Rule 31 of the said later set of Rules empowers the respondents to allot Rectified Spirit to the arrack manufacturers who take the delivery of the allotted quant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR464]; ILR2004KAR2278; 2004(6)KarLJ17; (2004)IIILLJ1044Kant
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 29173-78/1999 dated 1.12.2000.2. The facts in these appeals are as follows:-The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'KSRTC') and the Employees Union entered into a settlement dated 27.7.1970. On the basis of this settlement, a trust was created under the registered trust deed dated 22.7.1974. The main object of the Trust is to render monetary help to members on retirement due to superannuation or medical grounds or to the nominees of the deceased member.To become a member of the Trust, it is necessary that one should be an employee of the KSRTC. The constitution of the trust provides for eight persons as trustees, out of which two shall be nominated by the KSRTC, five shall be representatives of the workmen and the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. shall be the Chairman.3. On the allegation of misappropriation of money by the then Secretary o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)22; IV(2004)BC44; 2004CriLJ2947; 2004(4)KarLJ262
ORDERK. Ramanna, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 25-6-1999 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 16399 of 1997 and order dated 26-9-2001 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Cri. R.P. No. 239 of 1999, whereby the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, convicted this petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount he shall suffer S.I. for two months. Whereas, 1st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge allowed Cri. R.P. No. 239 of 1999 filed by the respondent for inadequate sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, assailing both the orders the petitioner has come up with this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!