Karnataka Court March 2005 Judgments

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prakash and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006ACJ258

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Respondent No. 1 injured while travelling in Ambassador car bearing registration No. KA 09-M 717 belonging to the respondent No. 2 met with an accident on 29.9.1998 and suffered the loss of vision of one eye. The injured states that he is the employee of respondent No. 2 herein and was travelling in car belonging to respondent No. 2 to go to workplace. Therefore, the accident occurred in the course of and out of employment as such made a claim for compensation against the owner and the insurer of the car. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 1,06,257 and directed the insurer to pay the amount. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer is in appeal.2. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration:Whether Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is legally correct in directing the insurer to pay the compensation when the policy issued does not cover the risk of any of the employees except the driver in case of a private ...

K.B. Nagendra and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant305; ILR2005KAR2105

ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated. 4.7.2002 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners which was filed under Section 46-A(3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) and also the order dated. 20.6.2001 passed by respondent No. 3 namely the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and Registration, Tumkur District directing the petitioners to pay stamp duty and registration fee of Rs. 1,46,174/- in respect of the sale deed dated 13.2.1997 executed in their favour.2. The facts essential for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:The petitioners purchased a certain property as per the sale deed dated. 13.2.1997 produced as Annexure-B. The said deed was presented for registration before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar impounded the said document Under Section 33(1) of the Act on the ground that the instrument was not duly stamped. Accor...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Vyjanath Since Dead by Lrs. S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR154

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The land of the claimant in Sy. No. 17/A measuring 2 acres 28 guntas in Yeramarus village is acquired for the purpose of widening the railway track. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 53,000/- per acre. The State is in appeal assailing the compensation granted as excessive.2. The claimant has filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation.3. The adjoining lands nearby are converted for non-agricultural purpose and sites are formed. Ex.P.8 is the sale deed of a site measuring 38 ft. x 45 ft. dated 20-10-1987 sold for Rs. 10,000/-. Ex.P.9 is the another sale deed of a site measuring 35 ft x 45 ft. The Reference Court has deducted 53% towards civic amenities and arrived at the value of the land at Rs. 1,02,366/- per acre but granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 53,000/- per acre. In the first place, deduction towards civic amenities is improper. It is only in case where the land is acquired for housing purpose, the...

Manohar Bhimappa More Vs. Mahadev Bhimappa More and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006ACJ850

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The claimant-injured made an application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the course of and out of employment. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the tractor-trailer. The injured is the brother of respondent No. 1 and contends that he was employed as a coolie in the tractor-trailer at the time of accident. The injured also stood as guarantor for repayment of loan borrowed by the respondent No. 1 for purchase of the tractor-trailer in question. The insurer, respondent No. 2, took up the plea that the injured is the brother of the respondent No. 1 and cannot be considered as a workman and sought exoneration of liability.2. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation upheld the contention of the insurer and rejected the claim without considering the other aspects.3. On thorough consideration of the facts, the view taken by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is bad in law. After all the tractor-tr...

Vivek Nagpal Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: IV(2005)BC130; 2005CriLJ2699; ILR2005KAR2120; 2005(4)KarLJ202

ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. The point for decision in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is 'Whether an accused who has applied for permanent exemption from personal appearance is entitled to remain absent merely on the ground that his application has not been disposed of2. In the prosecution, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner a Director of accused No. 1 Company sought for permanent exemption from appearance on the ground that he being a business man staying in Delhi was required to visit different places and it would be in convenient for him to attend the Court on all dates. That application was filed after closure of the cross-examination of P.W.1 i.e., the complainant and after the case had been posted for further evidence of the complainant. No decision was taken by the learned Magistrate on that application. On the next date i.e., on 31.1.2005, at the time of recording evidence of P.W.2, since the petitioner was a...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hanumant and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006ACJ251

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The insurer is in appeal. The respondent No. 1 is the injured-claimant and son of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is the owner of Mahendra jeep. In the motor vehicle accident occurred on 8.7.1999, respondent No. 1 sustained simple injuries. The disability certificate at Exh. P-7 dated 7.8.2001 shows that injuries have resulted in restricted and painful movement of knee. The doctor has assessed disability at 5 to 10 per cent. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has assessed the disability at 15 per cent. It was the contention before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner that respondent No. 1 was employed in the jeep by respondent No. 2. In view of the father and son relationship, it is argued by the insurer that there exists no relationship of employer and employee to entertain the claim under Workmen's Compensation Act. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation overruled the objection and granted compensation of Rs. 39,324 assessing disability at 15 pe...

Ashok V. David Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ584

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. In this writ petition, what essentially falls for decision making is whether the direction issued by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 10-5-1996 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8391 and 8393 of 1996 has been correctly complied with by the Union Public Service Commission, the 3rd respondent herein.2. Few facts which are germane to the decision making may be noted first, and they are as follows.--The petitioner was appointed to Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS) in 1974 by direct recruitment. On completion of 8 years of service in KAS, he became eligible for consideration and promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in terms of the 'Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955' (for short, 'Regulations').3. The petitioner was not considered for promotion to the IAS cadre by promotion at the appropriate time though he ought to have been brought under zone of consideration in the year 1983 itself. That led to litigation between th...

Yellamma Vs. Sukhdev Singh and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC886; 2007(6)KarLJ486

Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One Hanumanthappa a minor boy aged about 5 years is the deceased in M.V.C. No. 1062 of 1991. Parents are the petitioners. The Tribunal awarded compensation and directed the owner to pay the compensation. The claim against the insurer is rejected. Hence the appeal.2. The facts and evidence discloses the owner had taken cover note on 3.9.1992 against a cheque lor Rs. 4,260 by his friend in favour of the insurer. The Development Officer after couple of hours found that the cheque is not issued by the insured, therefore approached the insured, collected the cover note and cancelled the policy.3. The provisions of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 reads thus:64VB. No risk to be assumed unless that premium is received in advance.--(1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person i...

Murugesh Mudaliar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

1. The owners of the acquired land being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23-7-2002 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 6522 to 6524 of 1998 have preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 4916 to 4918 of 2002 whereas, the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18-7-2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 30558 of 2000 (Smt. Andalamma v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : ILR2003KAR1466 has preferred Writ Appeal No. 4899 of 2002. Since the dispute brought before the Court in both the set of writ appeals relate to the same subject land, we clubbed both the appeals, heard them together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The mother of the appellants in W.A. Nos. 4916 to 4918 of 2002 viz., late Smt. Andalamma was the owner of 3 acres 8 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 20/1B of Madivala Village, Bangalore South Taluk. The said land was sought to be acquired by the Government for formation of Koramangal...

North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Nwkrtc), by Its Manag ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR1694; [2006]144STC167(Kar)

ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. Petitioners have called in question the notices issued under Section 14 of the Karnataka Sales Act, 1957 (for short 'KST Act') whereby the second respondent has directed the petitioners to pay the amount held by them as 'security deposit' of the 3rd respondent towards his tax arrears.2. The first Petitioner is a Road Transport Corporation established under the provisions of the Road Transportation Corporation Act, 1950 and the second respondent is its Divisional Controller. The Petitioner has established refreshment counters and other commercial establishments in its various bus- stands. In the bus-stand at Mudhol, the first petitioner was granted licence to run a refreshment room for a period of six years commencing from 8.11.1999 on a monthly licence fee of Rs. 15,800/- for the first year with escalation of 10% every year thereafter. The licence so granted would expire on 7.8.2005. Similarly, the first petitioner has granted another licence to the third respon...