Karnataka Court October 2005 Judgments

The Tumkur GraIn Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. K.B. Lingaraju a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR5673; 2005(6)KarLJ481

H.L. Dattu, J.1. Just a simple question of law would arise in this appeal for our determination.2. The appellant before us is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity and clarity refereed to as 'Act, 1959'). The 1st respondent before us is a member of the appellant bank. While he was the member of the 1st appellant bank, he also became a member of the 3rd respondent bank.3. The appellant bank had approached the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and to disqualify the 1st Respondent herein as a member of the appellant bank. By an order made on 13.3.2003, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies-2nd respondent herein had accepted the request of the appellant bank and had disqualified the 1st respondent as a member of the appellant bank. Aggrieved by this action of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent was before this Court in W...

Karnataka Milk Federation Employees Federation (R) and ors. Vs. the Co ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ610

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. W.P. No. 27441 of 2004 is filed by Karnataka Milk Federation Employees Federation and three others seeking for a writ of certiorari. to quash the endorsement dated 24-6-2004 issue by the Labour Commissioner. In addition petitioners are also seeking for a direction directing the third respondent to refer the dispute to the industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Alternatively, petitioners states that a direction be issued to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to adjudicate the dispute in terms of the averments. Petitioners in these circumstances are before me.2. First petitioner is a federation of various registered trade unions functioning among the workmen employed by KMF and the so-called contractors working in various District Milk Unions referred to as respondents in this petition. Sic [The second and the third respondents] are the contract labourers working in the respondent 15 for the last 10 to 15 years. The fourth petitioner is also a contract laboure...

S. Shivanna Vs. the Special Tahsildar and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Non-interference is the rule insofar as the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), for the purpose of mutating names of persons who have acquired rights by showing their names in the revenue records.2. It is for this reason this Court dismisses a good number of such writ petitions, directing the parties to make good their claims, rights, title and interest etc., before the Civil Court and whereupon to seek the Revenue Authorities for changes in the revenue records also in terms of the determination by the Civil Court vis-a-vis warring parties. But interference, though an exception and on rare occasions, will be in a case where it is warranted.3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court whether for issue of certiorari or writ of mandamus or even for issue of writ of prohibition, will be exercised when this Court notices that the administrative authorities have exercised the ...

Nanjamma Vs. R.T. Subbegowda and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant172; ILR2006KAR493

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Settlement not reported. Hence, the Court proceeds to deliver the judgment.2. This appeal is filed against the common judgment and decree 7-6-2001 passed by the first Appellate Court in R.A. Nos. 104 to 106/95. The appeal is restricted only to R.A. No. 104/95.3. The appellant was the plaintiff and respondents were the defendants in the suit before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court.4. The Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 205/93 for redemption of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 700/- from the first defendant/respondent by executing a conditional sale deed dated 11-4-1972 with the condition to redeem the properties after 5 years and before the 10 years. Eventhough the plaintiff repeatedly asked the first defendant to receive the amount and execute the discharge deed, the first defendant delayed the matter on one or the other pretext and finally asked the...

Havappa S/O Challappa, K. Raju S/O Havappa and Smt. Nagamma W/O Late S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006ACJ2366

K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. Petitioners in M.V.C. No. 3 9 2/19 95 are the husband, son and mother or one Vidyawathi who died in a motor vehicle accident. Deceased was working as a Coolie. Her income is to be assessed at Rs. 1,500/- per month.2. On re-examination, of facts and evidence, as par unit system, one-fourth, i.e., Rs. 375/- shall be deducted front the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. The total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,75,500/- (1125 X 12 X .13). petitioners are entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life, and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,88,500/- as against of Rs. 1,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. the enhanced compensation carries interest at 6% par annum .from the date of petition till payment.3. The Counsel for the respondent-insurer contends that the deceased was a passenger in a goods vehicle and that the insurer does not incur any liability to pay the compensat...

Mehata Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)7VST191(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar J.1. Petitioners are registered dealers both under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the KST Act') and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act'). Petitioners have questioned the legality of the Government notification dated March 31, 1997 (annexure C to the writ petition) issued under Section 8-A of the KST Act granting exemption in respect of notified items under this notification for a period of one year starting from April 1, 1998 from the tax that was payable under Section 5 of the KST Act.2. A notification of this nature though not one creating any liability and on the other hand being beneficial to the assessees, is nevertheless characterised as an arbitrary one, as one bringing about an invidious classification, discriminating between the business of intra-State and inter-State, in the sense that the petitioners are entitled to exemption of tax under KST Act while it is not so, provided under the CST Act, and ...

Havappa and ors. Vs. Md. Asad Ali and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2007)ACC828

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Petitioners in M.V.C. No. 392 of 1995 are the husband, son and mother of one Vidyawathi who died in a motor vehicle accident. Deceased was working as a coolie. Her income is to be assessed at Rs. 1,500 per month.2. On re-examination of facts and evidence, as per unit system, one-fourth, i.e., Rs. 375 shall be deducted from the income of the deceased for her personal expenses. The total loss of dependency comes to Rs. l,75,500 (Rs. 1,125 x 12 x 13). The petitioners are entitled to Rs. 10,000 towards loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 3,000 for funeral expenses. In all, petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,88,500 as against Rs. 1,70,000 awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation carries interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment.3. Learned Counsel for the respondent insurer contends that the deceased was a passenger in a goods vehicle and that the insurer does not incur any liability to pay the compensation. Howev...

Sripad Ekanath Gaonkar Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Kumta Division

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1895

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.7.1996 passed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner in case LRM.AP.CR.95/95-96.2. The brief facts leading to this case are that the land bearing survey No. 98/A measuring 1 acre 17 guntas 8 annas of Hanehalli village, Kumta taluk was granted by Land Tribunal to one Devu Honnappa Gowda and the occupancy rights was issued to him on 25.5.1981 as per Annexure-A. The petitioner herein was looking after Devu Honnappa Gowda therefore he made a registered will bequeathing some portion, i.e., 82 ft x 66 ft., of the said survey number in favour of the petitioner under a registered will dated 9.4.1985. Thereafter, pursuant to the said will the petitioner's name was incorporated in the record of rights. But respondent Asst. Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner as well as Devu Honnappa Gowda under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act stating that the Devu Honnappa Gowda has violated...

Parashram Mahadev Divate Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2007)ACC314

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Petitioner in M.V.C. No. 935/1990 is awarded compensation by the Tribunal. It is further directed by the Tribunal that the owner and insurer are liable to pay the compensation.2. Petitioner was a passenger in the goods tempo. An application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed seeking interim compensation. The Tribunal directed payment of interim compensation to the petitioner by the insurer of the tempo.3. This Court in M.F.A. No. 1670/1997 against the award of maximum compensation observed that as per the petition averments, the petitioner was travelling in the tempo after attending a marriage and, hence, he was an unauthorised passenger, and held that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the injuries sustained by the unauthorised passenger in view of the ruling of this Court in Smt. Mallawwa etc. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. and Ors. I (1999) ACC 112 (SC) : ILR 1999 Kant. 1363.4. After re...

Parashram Mahadev Divate Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insuranc ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ1438

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Petitioner in M.V.C. No. 935 of 1990 is awarded compensation by Tribunal. It further directed by the Tribunal that the owner and insurer are liable to pay the compensation.2. The petitioner was a passenger in the goods Tempo. An application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed seeking interim compensation. The Tribunal directed payment of interim compensation to the petitioner by the insurer of Tempo.3. This court in M.F.A. No. 1670 of 1997 against the award of compensation observed that as per the petition averments, the petitioner was travelling in Tempo after attending a marriage and hence, he was an unauthorised passenger, and held that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by the unauthorised passenger in view of the ruling of this court in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ILR 1999 Karnataka 1363.4. After recording the evidence, the Tribunal passed an award dire...