Karnataka Court February 2005 Judgments
Veeresh Vs. Siraj Ahmed and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: 2005ACJ1163
S.B. Majage, J.1. The appellant-claimant was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No. CRA 2525, covered by insurance policy issued by respondent No. 2, insurance company. He met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of said lorry and sustained injuries in the course of employment under respondent No. 1, owner of said vehicle. So he claimed compensation from the respondents. After inquiry, the Commissioner has awarded compensation to the appellant-claimant but, having held that the insurance policy was not in force on the date of accident, dismissed the claim against the insurance company and directed the respondent No. 1, owner, alone to pay the compensation awarded. It is against the said order and award, the claimant is before this court.2. It was vehemently argued for the claimant that since the policy was valid and in force from 7.1.2003 to 6.1.2004, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation even though the insurance policy was gi...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Manjunath and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4320; 2006(3)KarLJ570
Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 30th of January 2003 made in LAC No. 331/1987 by the Second Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore determining the market value of the acquired lands which is the subject matter of the dispute in these appeals at Rs. 370/- per sq. ft.2. The appellants in MFA No. 2538/2003 were the owners of land measuring, 1,00,473.03 sq. ft. (11,163.67 square yards) with an old building and trees situated at No. 1, Old Madras Road at the end of M.G Road, Bangalore and were the claimants before the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court'). The appellants' in MFA No. 5525/2003 are the beneficiaries for whose benefit the land referred to above was acquired. While it is the grievance of the claimants that the compensation determined by the Reference Court is on the lower side and it is the grievance of the beneficiaries that the compensation dete...
Tag this Judgment!Shashikala Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secretary, Rural Develo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1405; 2005(2)KarLJ449
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Since this Writ Petition can be disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage itself, Sri H.B. Narayan, learned High Court Govt. Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and Sri K.N. Phanindra to take notice for R-2.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The nomination paper of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that she is working as a cook under the Scheme called 'Bisi Oota'(Hot Food) of the Government of Karnataka, which is profitable post as per the clarification made by the State Election Commission under Annexure-C. The clarification so made is based on the Letter dated 28.6.2004 of the Government that the staff working under the aforesaid Scheme are disqualified to contest in the election. The second ground mentioned in Annexure-A is that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of her working under the Scheme both in the nomination paper of the declaration.4. The nomination paper is not rejected on the grounds me...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramu Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC28; 2005(3)KarLJ92
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is a holder of contract carriage permits issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of his vehicles, also registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It appears, a portion of the route covered under the permits lies in the State of Karnataka and the permit holder is required to obtain the countersignature in the State of Karnataka. Petitioner, who is operating motor vehicles in the State of Karnataka, is also liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short, 'Karnataka Act'), in terms of Section 3 -the charging section - and tax at the rate specified in Part 'A' of the Schedule is levied on all motor vehicles on use of the roads in the State. The petitioner's vehicles which are being used on the road in the State of Karnataka as contract carriages and as part of the routes passes through the State of Karnataka, obviously are liable to tax, as Section 3 of the Act is attracted.2. Insofar ...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Shankar Linge Gowda and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka Repr by I ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1827
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. As per the Memos filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, permitted to delete Respondents 5 to 9 in W.P. Nos 4630-49/2005 and Respondents 5 to 8 in W.P. Nos. 5699-5719/2005.2. The petitioners have studied MBBS Course in Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Dr. Ambedkar Medical College, M.S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore Medical College, Siddartha Medical College and Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College. The said colleges are affiliated to Bangalore University which is duty bound to conduct examinations under the Regulations framed by it in exercise of its power under the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act of 2005. The examinations have been conducted by the University upto November 2003 and thereafter no examinations were conducted by it to the students who have studied under the Scheme applicable for them. As a result of which, the petitioners could not take-up the examinations. When the things stood thus, the State Government h...
Tag this Judgment!Ningappa Siddappa Chougala Vs. the Secretary to the Department of Urba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ370
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Since this writ petition can be disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage itself, Sri H.B. Narayan, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Sri K.N. Phanindra to take notice on behalf of 2nd respondent.2. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.3. The petitioner is the Adhyaksha of Harugeri Gram Panchayat. He is seeking a prohibition to declare election to the said Gram Panchayat until his tenure is over. According to the petitioner, he has got another 6 months tenure of office.4. The prohibition sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Declaration of election is not made. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated as under:'The petitioner apprehends and also reliable learnt that by the end of December 2004 a process of preliminary preparation for declaring the election to the said Panchayat is directed to be completed and thereafter very soon the necessary electi...
Tag this Judgment!Dilawarsab Alisab Jakati Vs. State of Karnataka by Its State Public Pr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2687; ILR2005KAR2282
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This appeal is by the accused assailing the Judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC in S.C. No. 47/2000 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, dated 28-2-2003 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000-00, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months.2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as under:The accused Dilawarsab, s/o Alisab was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C on the allegation that on 26-9-1999 at about 12.00 noon, committed rape on his cousin sister P.W. 13 in the land of PW 1-Dadesab at Teggihal village. The prosecutorP.W. 13 is the daughter of P.W. 1-Dadesab and he is residing in his lands at Teggihal village along with his wife-Bibijan, sons viz., P.W. 3-Husseinsab, Hazarathsab and Moulasab. The brother of P.W.1-Aslisab was also residing nearby with his wife and son-Dilawarsab (accused). On the said date and time, while P.W....
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. S. Rachaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2313; 2005(4)KarLJ76
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is before me in WP No. 30094 of 2001 challenging the award of the Labour Court passed in ID No: 64 of 1997 dated 4.1.2001.2. Respondent workman was working as Conductor in the Corporation. On 14.9.1993 the bus bearing No. MEF 1634 which he was conducting was subjected to check by the checking officials at Maddur bus stand and the following irregularities were found:i) Respondent has failed to issue tickets to six passengers travelling from Borapura to Maddur despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 1.25;ii) Respondent has failed to issue tickets to five passengers travelling from Borapura to Maddur and had not collected the requisite fare of Rs. 1.25.Penalty receipts were issued to five passengers and obtained necessary impeached tickets in respect of ticketless passengers and recorded statements of six ticketless passengers and necessary remarks were noted about the conductor on the waybill. The checking staff ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramachandra Rao Vs. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KarLJ52
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned endorsement dated 28-2-2002 vide Annexure-A and the order dated 3-10-2000 vide Annexure-B, both issued and passed by the respondents, has presented this writ petition.2. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee as a Literate Assistant and his service was regularised as a Meter Reader. On 13-10-1995, the charge was framed against the petitioner stating that, he has declared himself as an autorickshaw driver and he has furnished the permit for autorickshaw and secured a loan of Rs. 27,000/-. The show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-C, along with the copy of the charge memo, the list of witnesses and the list of documents. After the receipt of the said show-cause notice along with necessary documents and the copy of the charge memo, the petitioner has filed his reply vide Annexure-D. After the receipt of the reply filed by the petitioner and having regard to the magnitude ...
Tag this Judgment!Bright Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Comme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: (2008)11VST564(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'). Petitioner has been assessed to certain tax liability for the accounting period 2003 and 2004 dated December 27, 2004 as per annexure A. Petitioner is disputing the liability to tax under this order on the premise that while assessing, the petitioner has not been extended the various concessions that has been extended to persons like petitioner on the basis of various Government Orders that had been issued from time to time particularly G.O. No. CI 30 SPC 96, dated March 15, 1996 package of incentives and concessions for the years 1996 to 2001; that in terms of the concessions given under this notification for the kind of business that the petitioner is carrying. The petitioner contends that it is entitled for such benefit for a period of six years from the date of production; that the assessing authority has not extended this benefit in view of a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »