Karnataka Court June 2005 Judgments
Gopala Krishna Bhat Vs. Shivamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR6009; 2006(4)KarLJ353
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The Motor Cycle hearing Regn. No. CTX:5412 initially belong to R4 in appeal. His name is shown in the RC as owner.2. The facts disclose that the vehicle has been transferred to the appellant from R4 by way of sale. However, the name of the appellant is not entered in RC. The effective possession and use of vehicle is with the appellant. The appellant caused the accident and caused the death of one Lingappa Naik. The LRs. of Lingappa Naik are the petitioners in MVC No. 165/93. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 92,500/- payable by the appellant. The Tribunal has not fastened joint liability on the RC holder and Respondent No.4 herein.3. The contention of the appellant that RC holder is liable and award should be made against the RC holder is untenable. The appellant being in possession of the vehicle and he caused the accident, therefore he is a tort-feasor. Notionally, RC holder is a joint tort-feasor but that does not however exonerate the liability of the ...
Tag this Judgment!B.A. Kagali and anr. Vs. the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ453
S.R. Nayak, J.1. In these two writ appeals the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th April, 2003 in W.P. No. 24736 of 2001 and W.P. Nos. 24395 and 24396 of 2000 is assailed. The sixth respondent herein, viz., Smt. Ramani is the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 24736 of 2001. Smt. Ramani is a 'Kuruba' by caste born outside Coorg District. In the year 1977, she was married to one H.T. Devaraj, a kuruba by birth, residing at Dechoor, Madikeri in Coorg District. In terms of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, the husband of Smt. Ramani is a Scheduled Tribe on account of the being a 'Kuruba' from Coorg District.There is no controversy between the parties that the husband of Smt. Ramani and two children bom out of the wedlock belong to Scheduled Tribe in terms of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. In the year 1981 Smt. Ramani applied to the Tahsildar, Madikeri, for a certificate to the effect that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe she being a 'Kur...
Tag this Judgment!P. Keshava Murthy Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secret ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4772; 2006(3)KarLJ271
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. I have heard the counsel for the Review Petitioner and Govt. Advocate for respondent-1 and counsel for respondents-2 to 4.2. The petitioner herein had filed Writ Petition in No. 41864/2002 challenging the endorsement refusing to pay the compensation to the petitioner in respect of acquisition of 4 acres of land situated in Sy. No. 28 of Doddasanne village of Devanahali taluk. The endorsement further reads that compensation would be paid to the petitioner provided he gets a declaratory relief from the competent Civil Court. Challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court contending that one Rudramuni was the owner of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 28 of Doddasanne village of Devanahalli taluk and he had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 15.9.84. Since the date of purchase, he was in lawful possession of the same. According to him. his vendor Rudramuni had been granted this land under a grant certificate. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Govindamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC851; 2006ACJ563; [2005(106)FLR1180]; ILR2005KAR3242; 2005(4)KarLJ604
Anand Byrareddy, J1. The appeals is M.F.A. Nos. 7506/02 and 7507/02 are by the Insurance Company and the appeals in M.F.A. Nos. 748/03 and 749/03 are by the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur ('the Commissioner' for short).2. It is seen that the proceedings before the Commissioner were not contested and in this light, the Commissioner has accepted the statements of the claimants in allowing the petitions and awarding compensation.3. Mr. O. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for appellant Insurance Company draws my attention to the First Information Report (the 'FIR' for short) which is placed on record by the claimants themselves, wherein it is stated that at the time of accidents there were about 40 people travelling in the lorry as passengers and if this submission is to be accepted, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation, since there is no statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travell...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Machine Tools Limited (Hmt Ltd.) and anr. Vs. Workmen of Hmt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR694]; ILR2005KAR4656; 2005(4)KarLJ606
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The appellants in this appeal have called in question the correctness of the order dated 9th February, 2001 made in Writ Petition No. 19893 of 1994 by the learned Single Judge of this Court Workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Specialised Watch Case Division v. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and Ors., : (2001)ILLJ1449Kant wherein, he has taken the view that the workers of the HMT Limited, Specialised Watch Case Division, i.e., the 2nd appellant, are entitled to receive bonus from the appellants for the year 1983-84 onwards. 2. Since the 1st respondent, though served with the notice, failed to enter appearance, we requested Sri M.V. Vedachala, learned Counsel who was present in the Court, to assist the Court in this appeal as Amicus Curiae in support of the case of the 1st respondent.3. Facts in brief.--The 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the workmen Union') had raised a dispute with regard to their claim for monthly performances incentiv...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Milk Bar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: (2007)6VST441(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner, a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), who has preferred a second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, has approached this Court praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the Tribunal to entertain the appeal of the petitioner before it, independent of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 22(2) of the Act.2. Submission of Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner, in fact, has filed an application for condoning the delay for preferring the appeal beyond the time stipulated under the statute; that the petitioner has every justification and is in a position to demonstrate the reason for such delay to be bona fide and inevitable, but the Tribunal being not permitted to condone any delay beyond the period of 180 days after the expiry of initial period of 60 days, the Trib...
Tag this Judgment!RheIn Chemie Rheinau Gmbh Vs. Standard Oil Additive Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC114; [2005]128CompCas13(Kar); ILR2005KAR3228; [2005]63SCL434(Kar)
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner M/s Rhein Chemie Rheinau GmbH, is said to be a company registered under the laws of Germany carrying on business in the manufacture and marketing of various types of chemical products for sale within and outside the country.2. The respondent, it is stated is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, for short the Act, having its Registered Office at 1629, 1st cross, 16th Main, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore-560 070, with an authorised share capital of Rs. 1,00,00,000 divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 100/-each. The issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the company is said to be Rs. 30,00,000/- equity shares as on 31st March, 2003.3. The petitioner claims to be a leading manufacturer of various chemical products and a division of Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as Bayer Rubber Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., an indenting agent in India for canvassing the sale of chemicals and chemical products of the petitioner. Lan...
Tag this Judgment!Constable Basavaraj Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR468]; ILR2005KAR3513
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala J.1. The Petitioner, who is dismissed Border Security Force (BSF) Constable, has challenged the order of dismissal dated 7.10.2001 issued by the Respondent No. 2/ the Commandant of BSF (Annexure-A) dismissing the Petitioner from service on the ground that he was found guilty of charge under Section 20(a) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short, 'the Act').2. The Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-(a) to quash the order of dismissal dated 7.10.2001 bearing No. Estt/SSFC-BR/63 Bn/2001/7726-34 made against the Petitioner;(b) to quash the letter bearing No. LO/1342/CC.Misc./2003/724 issued by the Law Officer, Grade-I (Annexure-D) requesting the Petitioner to approach FHQ BSF, New Delhi, for copies of S S F C proceedings as the records were not available in the unit;(c) to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential monetary benefits;(d) to direct the Respondent No. 1 to initiate appropriate...
Tag this Judgment!Sri T.N. Anantha Balaraje Urs Vs. Smt. Gunamba Nanjaraje Urs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC1; ILR2005KAR3596; [2006(1)JCR384(Kant)]; 2005(5)KarLJ256
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This appeal preferred by the defendant in the suit arises out of the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1997 passed in O.S. No. 188 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore. The Court below has decreed the suit for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff who is respondent is this appeal in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that she is entitled for half share in item No. 1 of the suit schedule property and two-third share in item nos. 2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties and for partition of the same by metes and bounds and to put her in separate possession of the same and also for directing an inquiry regarding future mesne profits.2. The facts set out in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:Sri M.N. Balaraje Urs was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and he died on 17.6.1930. At the time of his death, he was the sole surviving coparcener of the family. He left b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. D.S. Vijayalakshmamma Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4389; 2005(5)KarLJ95
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These two petitions are taken up together for passing a common order.W.P. No. 6811 of 2004 is before me seeking for a direction directing the respondent to consider the objection of the petitioner dated 29-9-2000, Annexure-K with a further direction of an opportunity of being heard.2. According to petition averments petitioner is an absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of site bearing No. 1208, Sarakki II Phase Extension, II Stage, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore measuring East-West 12.19 meters and North-South 18.29 meters. Respondent pursuant to allotment of the schedule property was put the petitioner in possession of the same in terms of the possession certificate dated 19-5-1980. Thereafter an absolute registered sale deed was executed in terms of Annexure-B. J.P. Nagar Second Stage was developed by the BDA. The said layout was transferred to Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for its maintenance by local board. Petitioner applied for change of katha in her name. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »