Karnataka Court March 2005 Judgments

Dabulu Shedthi Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ575

S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Writ Petition No. 35385 of 1997 filed by the appellant herein calling in question the validity of the order of the Land Tribunal, Karkala dated 3-10-1981 is dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present writ appeal by the aggrieved writ petitioner.2. The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition be noted in the first instance in brief and they are as follows.--The appellant claiming to be the tenant of certain lands including the land admeasuring 71 cents comprised in Sy. No. 41/3 of Bola Village, Karkala Taluk (hereinafter shall be shortly referred to as 'scheduled land') filed Form 7 for declaration under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry, by its order dated 3-10-1981, granted occupancy rights of 86 cents of land in Sy. No. 41/2A, 1 acre 2 cents of land in Sy. No. 41/2C, 4 cents of land in Sy. No. 375/1 and 1 acre 69 cents of land in Sy. No. 375/2. It is q...

Managing Director, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: IV(2005)ACC589; 2006ACJ305

S.B. Majage, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant N.W.K.R.T.C. has challenged the impugned judgment and award passed by the M.A.C.T., Haveri, by which it has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 49,200 with interest at 6 per cent per annum, to the respondent-claimant.2. The case of the appellants is that as the respondent-claimant was travelling sitting on the top of the bus, as has come in the evidence, the appellants are not at all responsible for the accident and for the compensation as well. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant supported the impugned award. Perused the records carefully.3. The respondent-claimant filed claim petition stating that he met with accident while travelling by K.S.R.T.C. bus No. KA 25-F 383 from Haveri to Kallihal village on 11.2.1997, in which he was thrown away near the land of Parasanagoudra and sustained multiple simple injuries besides grievous, namely, fracture to 4th and 5th ribs on right side, for which he took trea...

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., First Branch Rep. by Its Regional Man ...

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner in MVC No. 51/95 sustained personal injuries in the accident. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 14000/- with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till payment and directed the owner and insurer to pay the compensation, The insurer is in appeal.2. The insurer is served and remained unrepresented before the Tribunal, The owner had filed his written statement contending that the vehicle is insured with the appellant.3. In this appeal, the insurer-appellant contends that the vehicle is not covered by insurance. Therefore the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation;4. The award made by the Tribunal against the appellant 'is an exparte award. The appellant has twin remedy of filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 before the Tribunal for setting aside the exparte award or to file an appeal.5. In the appeal it is permissible for the appellant to show that the award/decree made is bad in law and liable to be set aside on the bas...

Thippeshappa Vs. State by Channagiri Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ428

ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J. 1. This is an application under Section 389 of the Cr. P.C. by the appellant-accused for suspension of sentence and for bail in SPL. NDPS. No. 4 of 2002, dated 6-1-2005 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere convicting the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to under go R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to under go S.I. for 3 months.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.--The Police, Channagiri have charge-sheeted the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the allegation that the accused had raised 40 ganja plants in the backyard of his house situated at Malligere Village and that the same were seized under the mahazar Ext. P. 2 in the presence of panch witnesses on 28-8-2002. After the Trial was concluded, the learned Sessions Judge, Davan...

Tippeshappa Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Channagiri Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2354; 2005(100)ECC548; ILR2005KAR1653

ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C by the appellant-accused for suspension of sentence and for bail in SPL.NDPS.No. 4 /2002 dated 6.1.2005 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere convicting the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(1) of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo R.I for one years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo S.I for 3 months.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Police, Channagiri have charged sheeted the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(1) of the N.D.P.S Act 1985 on the allegation that the accused had raised 40 ganja plants in the backward of his house situated at Malligere village and that the same were seized under the mahazar Ext. P2 in the presence of panch witnesses on 28.8.2002. After the trail was concluded, the learned Sessions Judge, Davanagere, for the reasons recorded in his judgment convicted the accused and sentenced him as ab...

North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rachappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006ACJ280; 2006(5)KarLJ277

S.B. Majage, J.1. In this appeal, the N.E.K.R.T.C., appellant, has challenged the correctness of the judgment and award dated 12.4.2001 passed by the M.A.C.T. III at Bellary.2. It was vehemently argued for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant to the extent of 25 per cent when the evidence on record clearly establishes that the driver of the bus did not contribute to any extent for the accident and it was the driver of the lorry, who alone was responsible for the accident. It was further argued that at any rate, since the claimant-respondent No. 1 had kept his hand on the sill of the window, he could be held to have contributed for the accident and not the driver of the bus. On the other hand, for claimant-respondent No. 1, it was submitted that the claimant cannot be held responsible nor he could be said to have contributed for the accident, as held by this court in the decisions relied on b...

Rudramuni Devaru Vs. Shrimad Maharaj Niranjan Jagadguru Dr. Gangadhar ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant313; 2005(2)ARBLR342(Kar)

S.R. Nayak, J.1. The appellant herein is the applicant in Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 1999. This appeal preferred under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2000, passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Dharwad. The Court below by the order under appeal has dismissed Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 1999 filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Act.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:There is a well known Veerashaiva Math called Moorusaavira Math at Hubli having large number of devotees in the Veerashaiva Community not only in the State of Karnataka but also from outside. Moorusaavira Math is registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short, 'the BPT Act'). The first respondent was the Mathadipathi and sole trustee ...

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Now Represented by ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ1421

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The vehicle in question is the official Jeep belonging to Respondent No. 2, One Maktumsha Sayyed is a' driver of the Jeep, employed under Respondent No. 2, The third respondent is the Senior Officer working under the second respondent entitled to use the Jeep for official purpose.2. On 8.2.93 the third respondent went to Kurundawad village by official Jeep. The Jeep was driven by the deceased. The third respondent visited the village for personal work for recovery of his personal loans from the- villagers. There was commotion and altercation. The villagers beat the third respondent and his son, The driver was also beaten resulting in his death. The wife of the deceased made claim before the W.C. Commissioner seeking compensation,. The eerrenissloner directed the second respondent, insurer of the Jeep to pay Rs. 227079/- and directed the second respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1000/- towards funeral expenses. The insurer, is in appeal seeking avoidance of the liab...

Girijamma Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1870; 2006(3)KarLJ623

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The Constitutional validity of Section 61 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, is no longer reintegrate in view of the Constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Srinivasa Raghavachar v. State of Karnataka AIR 1987 SC 1578, wherein the validity of Act No. 1/1974 is upheld. Hence, the contention urged in this regard cannot be accepted and the same are rejected.2. Since the granted land was sold within a period of 15 years, by the impugned order the land has been restored to the original grantee. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is also passed under Section 5(1)(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act restoring the land, which is not permissible.3. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Anr. v. State of Karnataka : ILR2002KAR4693 the provisions of PTCL Act are not applicable. Hence, the impugned orde...

Workmen, Represented by General Secretary, Kudremukh Shrama Shakthi Sa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4500; 2005(2)KarLJ494

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J. 1. The petitioner's Union seeks (a) writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order/endorsement dated 9-9-2004 vide Annexure-A passed/issued by the 1st respondent, by which the petitioner-Union is directed to vacate and surrender the Sampath Bhavan Annex Building and (b) writ of mandamus directing the respondent 1 to grant promotions due to the employees (non-executives) since 2003 in terms of Promotion Rules contained in Annexure-F and certain other incidental reliefs.2. Heard Sri M.C. Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Union, Sri Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 3-Union and Sri Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent 1 and perused the material on record.3. The brief facts of the case are that: the respondent 1 is a public sector undertaking engaged in Iron Ore mining operation, its marketing and other connected business; that it is a State ...