Karnataka Court June 2005 Judgments

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Anand and anr.

Court: Karnataka

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 4.8.2003 passed in M.V.C. No. 3429 of 2001. M.F.A. No. 6637 of 2003 is filed by the insurer. M.F.A. No. 7934 of 2003 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.2. The claimant-appellant while travelling as a pillion rider of a motor cycle, met with an accident on 16.7.2001 and sustained personal injuries. Accident occurred on account of the negligence of rider of the motor cycle. In respect of the motor cycle in question, the insurer had issued an Act policy which is marked at Exh. R1.The Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,41,992 payable with interest at 8 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and directed the insurer to pay the compensation. Hence, the insurer is in appeal seeking exoneration of the liability on the ground that the statutory Act policy issued at Exh. R1 does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. Per contra, t...

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Papaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: III(2005)ACC825; 2005(4)KarLJ469

1. New India Assurance Company Limited, the appellant herein in both the cases, has questioned the correctness of the award passed by the MACT-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, in M.V.C. Nos. 2097 of 2004 and 2099 of 2004, fastening liability on the Insurance Company and directing it to pay the compensation to the claimants in the above two cases.2. The facts involved in these two cases, in a nutshell, are as under:The petitioners in M.V.C. No. 2097 of 2004 are the husband and children of deceased Jayamma and the petitioners in M.V.C. No. 2099 of 2004 are the wife and daughter of deceased Bharath. It is the case of the petitioners that on 10-3-2004, the above said Jayamma, Bharath and other family members had gone to Ugranarasimha Swamy Temple in an auto rickshaw bearing No. KA-06-7745, and at about 7.30 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver, the auto turned turtle and fell into a ditch, killing on the spot Jayamma, Bharath and Chandana. Based on...

K.P. Kashinath Vs. Manjunath Eshwar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ108

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Appellant is before me challenging the order dated 16-4-2005 passed on I.A. No. I in O.S. No. 2251 of 2005.2. The facts in brief are as under:Appellant was elected as the President of Sadashivanagar Club by the General Body of the Society in an Annual General Meeting held on 11-6-2004. Certain construction activities were carried out in the club premises and some of the members complained that there were some irregularities in the utilisation of funds. In this regard an extraordinary General Body Meeting was held and a fact finding committee was constituted. 2.1 One Sri Jagadishchandra and others filed a suit in O.S. No. 9044 of 2004 against the club praying to declare that the convening of the extraordinary General Body Meeting on 3-10-2004 and the proceedings of the said meeting and all steps pursuant to the same are illegal and void. An ex parte order of injunction was granted in the said suit. Plaintiff-appellant filed objections on behalf of the defendants ...

Srinidhi Bar and Restaurant Vs. the Regional Director, Employees' Stat ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR929]; 2005(5)KarLJ101; (2005)IIILLJ845Kant

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The present appeal challenging the order of the ESI Court dated 16-6-2000 in ESI Application No. 13 of 1996, raises the following substantial question of law:'Whether the ESI Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not considering the documents which were on record?'2. Sri S.V. Shastry, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Gopalakrishna R. Hegde, would emphasise that the burden though cast on the appellant before the ESI Court to prove that the appellant had not employed more than 10 persons at any point of time, it was incumbent on the Court to give a finding on the validity or otherwise of material relied upon by the Corporation in passing the order under Section 45-A of the Act. He would vehemently urge that the plain paper report which has been relied upon in support of the order under Section 45-A was incomplete and that the list of employees indicated in the report is not prepared in the manner as has been laid down in a judgment of this Court...

The Managing Director Ksrtc Vs. Mohan Bhide and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4962

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before challenging the common award passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 256/88 and 260/88.2. Respondents in WP No. 36046/99 and 36047/99 were engaged as casual labourers to work as security guards on payment of Rs. 10 per day in Dharmasthala Depot to meet the exigencies of work on 14-9-1984 and 24-1-1984 respectively. They were not appointed on regular basis and they had no lien or right to be considered for fresh appointment. Respondents raised a dispute on the ground hat they were refused employment from February, 1988 and January, 1988 respectively. Corporation contested the matter. Witnesses were examined. Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages. This award is challenged in these petitions.3. Learned Counsel for the corporation argues that no appointment order was issued to the respondent workmen and they have no claim or right to any post in terms of the material available on record. She further says t...

Kaveramma and anr. Vs. Pillamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR2925; 2005(5)KarLJ81

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The present appeal is filed against the grant of an injunction order by the Trial Court directing both the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule properties, till the disposal of the suit. Along with the appeal, the appellants have filed an application to produce additional documents. This is in the face of the finding of the Trial Court that the defendants have failed to produce any documents in support of their contentions at the time of hearing on the application for injunction.2. The vehement submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellants is that the identity of the property itself is in dispute and by virtue of the order of status-quo, the appellants are prevented from carrying on with the construction of their house premises which has reached the final stage and therefore it would be well within the power of this Court to take into account the additional documents sought to be produced and consider the modification of the impugn...

Rehana Begum Vs. Mirza M. Shaiulla Baig and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2005Kant446; ILR2005KAR5010; 2006(4)KarLJ195

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The facts leading to the present petition can be summarised as follows:The petitioner is the plaintiff. O.S.No. 8201/1980 is filed by her for declaration and consequential relief of injunction and also to re-open the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 290/1975. A copy of the plaint thereof is produced at Annexure-A. The reason for instituting such a suit is not required to be stated for disposing of this petition. Suffice it to say that O.S.No. 290/1975 was filed by the petitioner herein and respondent No. 6-Rizavane Begum. Mr. Narasimha Murthy was the Learned Counsel who was appearing for the defendants in the said suit. Respondent No. 7 who is none other than the sister of petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No. 7804/1980, for an identical relief to avoid compromise decree in O.S.No. 290/ 1975. In the said suit, i.e., O.S.No. 7804/1980, Mr. Narasimha Murthy, who was appearing for the contesting defendants in O.S.No. 290/ 1975 retired from the proceedings and w...

Manjushree Extrusions Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercia ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4994; (2007)8VST511(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The writ petition by the dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act whose request for availing the benefit under what is known as 'Kara Samadhan Scheme' in terms of Government order No. FD 291 CSL 03 dated 3-10-2003 was denied by the authorities under the Act meant to implement the scheme with a complaint that the petitioner has been unjustly and illegally deprived the benefit of the scheme though petitioner had fully complied with the necessary requirements under the scheme for availing of the relief.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had suffered penalties for the years 1995-96-Rs. 3 lakhs, 1996-97-Rs. 75,000/- and 1997-98-Rs. 3 Lakhs. In the appeal before the first appellate authority, petitioner was able to get such penalties reduced to Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh respectively.3. The petitioner had pursued his efforts for further reduction by filing second appeals before the Tribunal. Such appeals were filed on 7-9-2000. The petitio...

The Executive Engineer, Kptcl Now Gescom and ors. Vs. Ishwaramma and a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant23; ILR2005KAR5206; 2006(3)KarLJ625

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Issue Rule.2. The petitioners who are the custodians of power supply to the State have challenged the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bidar, vide Annexure-C.3. Few facts are required to be stated for the disposal of the petition.The petitioners' case is that the board is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 in exercise of the powers under Sections 49 and 79 of the Regulations called K.E.B. Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988. They have statutory force. The 1st respondent herein had availed power supply for commercial purpose to run a flour-mill under the installation bearing R.R. No. MMP-6. The power supply availed by the 1st respondent is for commercial purpose. The installation of the 1st respondent was inspected by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), Vigilance Squad, Bidar and it was found that the 1st respondent was committing theft of electrical ene...

Venkatesh Power Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Kar)481; ILR2005KAR2758; [2005]278ITR436(KAR); [2005]278ITR436(Karn)

H.L. Dattu, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, at the instance of the assessee, has stated the case and has referred the following question of law for consideration and opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had not disclosed all the primary facts necessary for completing the assessment, as available with the assessee, and before completion of the original assessment and hence, the assessing officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act?'2. The assessee was carrying on the business of generating and supplying electricity in the township of Bagalkot. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee had filed its return of income on 3-11-1975, declaring the income of Rs. 32,953/- for the accounting period 1-4-1972 to 18-11-1972, on the ground that the business of the assessee firm was taken over by the Government on 13-11-1972. A...