Karnataka Court June 2005 Judgments

K. Somashekara Shetty Vs. Devaki and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR3534; 2005(5)KarLJ248

ORDER 18 RULE 4-WHETHER IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE LAND TRIBUNAL TO ACCEPT EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT IN ENGLISH WHEREAS RULES 17(1) AND (5) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS RULES AND SECTION 34 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN THE LANGUAGE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL ITS MEMBERS AND THAT A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE GIVEN BY EACH WITNESS HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE CHAIRMAN-HELD-It is not permissible to record evidence in English language not understood by all the members of the Tribunal because Rule 17(1) clearly states that the record of the proceedings shall be maintained in a language understood by all its members. Summary enquiry as provided in Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is prescribed for determination of the question in controversy. The procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules referred to above has to be followed by the Land Tribunal while holding inquiry. (C) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-LAND ...

The Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandrashekar Channabasappa Karchi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2006)BC200; ILR2005KAR5142; 2006(5)KarLJ402

ORDER 34 RULE 15(1)-Bank granting loan by obtaining promissory note and simple mortgage by deposit of title deeds as collateral security- whether charge created-HELD - Since the mortgage deed is not registered, there cannot be any charge on the mortgaged property under Section 100 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (Para 3(iii))(C) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908-SECTION 34-...

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Prakash Ramachandra Patnege an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2006)ACC196

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The insurer is in appeal seeking reduction of compensation paid to the petitioner-respondent in a sum of Rs. 45,000/- for the personal injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident.2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. On reconsideration of the material it suggests that global compensation of Rs. 30,000/- is just and proper payable with interest at 6% from the date of petition till payment. Accordingly, the judgment and award is modified. Appeal is partly allowed. The amount in deposited to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.3. M.V.C. No. 53 of 1999 pertains to the damage caused to the vehicle. The petitioner is reimbursed by his insurer in a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- in full and final settlement.4. The petitioner has made a claim against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The damage caused to the vehicle is assessed by the insurer of the petitioner and the compensation is paid accordingly. The assessment of damage made by...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Padmavathi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The two appeals pertain to M.V.C. Nos. 296 and 435 of 1998. The petitioners in both the cases are the injured. They have been granted compensation by the Tribunal and directed that appellant insurer shall pay compensation.2. The appellant insurer had taken up the plea before Claims Tribunal that there is no coverage of insurance and sought for exoneration of the liability. The insurance policy issued is marked at Exh. R1. The policy is issued for 1 month from 4.8.1997 to 3.9.1997. The accident occurred on 2.12.1997. Therefore, on the date of the accident there was no policy issued by the appellant.3. The Tribunal in para 36 of the judgment has held that issuance of policy for a period of one month, instead of one year is bad and that the insurer has not offered any special reasons for issuance of such a policy.4. The view taken by the Tribunal is bad in law. The Tariff Advisory Committee Regulations do permit issuance of policy for a period of one month and the pr...

Thomas Patrao Since Deceased by His Lr and anr. Vs. the State of Karna ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4199; 2006(5)KarLJ48

ORDERAbdul Nazeer. J.1. In this case, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Endorsement dt 12.7.2000 (Annexure-A) and the resolution dated 18.5.2000 (Annexure-B) passed by the second respondent, resolving to re-grant the land in question to the petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows;Petitioner was the owner of about 10 acres of land at Sy.No. 58/1 of Kalavar Village, Mangalore Taluk, out of which certain extent of land was acquired by the State Government in the year 1992 for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 'Board'). The 4th respondent again proposed to acquire additional extent of 4 acres 38 cents of lands of the petitioner in the same survey number for the similar purpose. A Notification under Section 28(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act), was issued to that effect. A Notice under Section 28(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to file objections as ...

The Managment of S.K.F. Bearings India Ltd. Vs. Mr. S.M. Ravi Kumar an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(109)FLR580]; ILR2006KAR445

P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the management of S.K.F. Bearings India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Managment'). The 1st respondent was the workman in the establishment of the management.2. In this appeal, the management has called in question the correctness of the order dated 7th November 2001 made in writ petition No. 36114 of 2001 by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge quashed the endorsement dated 19th December 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein the 3rd respondent informed the workman that the request to lodge a complaint against the management for violation of Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected on the ground that on 19th July 1999 when the workman came to be terminated from service, there was no conciliation proceedings pending on that date. The Learned Judge in the imp...

B. Damodara Vs. the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR3159; [2005]142STC454(Kar)

ORDERShylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition in the second round before this Court is directed against the Order dated 19-7-2004 [Copy at Annexure-D] passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - Respondent No. 2 herein in the exercise of his powers under Section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [for short 'the Act'] revising the assessment order dated. 1-7-2003 passed by the assessing authority for the period 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2002.2. Writ Petitioner, a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, had approached this Court earlier by filing writ petition No. 41311/2003 when the very Officer had issued a proposition notice invoking the power proposing revision of the order. However, this Court in terms of Order dated. 24-9-2003 while directed the petitioner to submit the objections and pursue the matter before the very authority, nevertheless, reserved liberty to move the Court if there is any necessity.3. Sri. Narayana, Learned Counsel for the petiti...

Baburao Vs. Eranna and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR3177

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. This is defendant No. 1's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 1-9-1999 made in R.A. No. 14/1987 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Bidar dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1987 made in O.S. No. 116/1983 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bidar.2. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 are represented by M/s. L.G. Associates.3. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant/defendant No. 1 and Respondents are referred to in the rank as arrayed in the suit.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 (Respondents 1 and 2) namely son and the wife of Gurappa Gorte filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No. 116/1983 against the present appellant/ defendant No. 1, Respondent No. 3 (defendant No. 2) as well as against Susheela Bai and Mukta Bai (defendants 3 and 4 re...

Amar Promoters and anr. Vs. J.S.A. Gajendra Reddy and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ273

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. This appeal by the contesting defendants 6 and 7 is preferred against the judgment and decree directing delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and further directing an enquiry for mesne profits from date of suit till date of delivery of possession and subject to such determination, the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 6,250/-per month.2. The facts of the case are as follows.--Respondent 1, the plaintiff before the Trial Court, is the owner of land at No. 1 (Old No. 34), I Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, which is described under the schedule to the plaint, measuring approximately about 10,000 sq. ft. The same was conveyed under a registered lease deed dated 29-12-1983 in favour of M/s. Srinivasa Trust, defendant 1 in the suit, a private Trust. The broad terms of the lease deed, inter alia were as follows.--(a) The term of lease was 40 years, commencing from the date of deed;(b) The lessee was to construct, as its cost, a multi-s...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B. Ramaswamy and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006ACJ812

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bellary. The substantial question of law raised in these appeals include whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had the authority to pass the award contrary to Section 21(1) and the proviso thereto under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in entertaining the claim petition in respect of a person who had suffered injuries within the limits of another Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and whether Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation can ignore the glaring discrepancies and the material on the record to indicate that the claim was concocted and false.2. Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, counsel for the appellant, drew my attention to several aspects. Firstly, that the accident in which the claimants were injured had occurred in Andhra Pradesh and the injured was treated in Andhra Pradesh, the claimants reside permanently in Andhra Pradesh and the employer has ...