Karnataka Court July 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Gangappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC860
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One Venkatesh is deceased in M.V.C. No. 44 of 1996. The petitioners are the parents. Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioners and directed the insurer of the tractor-trailer to pay compensation. The insurer is in appeal seeking avoidance of liability on the ground that the deceased is an unauthorised passenger in tractor-trailer.2. The tractor-trailer was loaded with sugarcane. According to the petitioners, the deceased was travelling as a loader and he had to unload the sugarcane at the factory. The owner of the tractor-trailer in the evidence states that the deceased is his nephew and not employed as a loader for the tractor-trailer.3. The inquest report prepared by the Investigating Officer some time immediately after the accident discloses that the deceased was travelling as a loader in the tractor-trailer. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of the owner and upheld the contention of the petitioner that deceased was a loader in the tractor-traile...
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Saundatti Branch, Through Its Regional Of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ1081; 2006(6)KarLJ332
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. All these appeals are pertaining to the same accident. About 44 persevere travelling in a tractor-trailer to attend the funeral function. As a result of the accident, 9 inmates died and 27 persons were injured. The petitioners sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('Act' for short). The application is made under Section 140 of the Act to seek interim compensation. The Tribunal directed the owner and insurer to pay the compensation. Appellant is the insurer.2. It is the contention of the respondents that an appeal under Section 173 of the Act, would not lie against ah order under Section 140 of the Act. In this regard, the decision of the Maharashtra State Road Transports Corporation v. Bapu Onkar Choudhari 2004 ACJ 35 is relied on. In the said decision, the Bombay High Court interpreting Rule 281 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, held that an order passed under Section 140 of the Act, is not an award.3. The Full Bench Decision of t...
Bharat Fritz Werner Karmika Sangha Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR143]; ILR2005KAR3666; 2005(5)KarLJ92; (2005)IIILLJ12Kant
H.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal by a trade union is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2003 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed Writ Petition No. 5570/2003 filed by the employer by quashing the order dated 31.12.2002 passed by respondent No. 2-Labour Inspector. The Labour Inspector by his said order passed in exercise of his power under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 (the 'Act' for short) had directed the employer to declare 14.4.2003 as a festival holiday.2. Facts in brief:The first respondent (the employer) issued a list of holidays for the year 2003, in which 1.1.2003 was specified as a festival holiday. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the trade union') sought for declaring 14.4.2003 as a holiday instead of 1.1.2003. The employer did not agree. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the employer, the trade union approached the jurisdictional Labour Inspector under S...
Cauvery Grameena Bank and anr. Vs. Ningaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ27
V. Jagannathan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of dismissal and granting consequential relief with full salary to the respondent, Cauvery Grameena Bank, the appellant herein, has preferred this appeal.2. The factual matrix that has given rise to this appeal, in brief, is as under:The respondent joined the services of the appellant-Bank as a File Supervisor on 26-9-1977 and was promoted as an officer on 1-9-1986. The appellant-Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent as per the charge-sheet dated 14-11-1991 to look into the charges relating to the period during which the respondent was the Manager of Hoogia and Naganahalli Branches of the Bank. As many as eight charges were framed in respect of Hoogia Branch and three charges pertain to Naganahalli Branch. A departmental enquiry was ordered. In the enquiry, out of eight charges pertaining to Hoogia Branch, charges 1, 2, 5 and 7 stood proved and as regards Naganahalli Bran...
B.N. Vijayakumar and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Dsp, Cod
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC365; ILR2005KAR4690; 2006(5)KarLJ16
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th December 2001 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No. 255/1996 holding the accused No. 1 and 2 guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as holding the Accused No. 3 only guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the present two appeals are filed.2. Criminal Appeal No. 64/2002 is filed by the Accused No. 1 and 2. Criminal Appeal No. 63/2005 is filed by the Accused No. 3 separately. Since the common judgment and evidence in common is required to be considered or appreciated in both these appeals and counsel for the accused being common, we have taken up both the appeals together for consideration and dispose of the same by this common judgment.3. This is yet another case of two young lives sacrificed and nipped at bud for the demonic culture of demand of dowry and resultant in cruelty and harassment in our s...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nagaraja and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ2782
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 1625 of 1997 sustained personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The petition averments disclose that the petitioner was travelling in a goods vehicle as a spare driver. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 75,100 and directed the owner and insurer of the goods vehicle to pay the compensation. The insurer is in appeal to avoid liability on the ground that there is no statutory coverage for petitioner.2. The relevant provision of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads thus:147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. xxx xxx xxxProvided that a policy shall not be required(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›