Karnataka Court August 2005 Judgments
G. Murgan and anr. Vs. Maheshwaran and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ122
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. The present appeal by the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner' for brevity), seek to question the finding of the Commissioner that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.2. The facts of the case are as follows.--The appellants herein are the parents of the deceased workman, who was working as a coolie in a vehicle which was a bore-well rig unit. On 21-3-2000 when the vehicle was taken to Holakoppa, Aneguddi Village and when the rig was being set up, an iron rod hammer weighing about 70 kilograms which was being installed, fell on the head of the deceased workman, who sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to a hospital in Shimoga, where he succumbed to the injuries two days later. The vehicle involved in the accident is covered under an insurance policy which is a motor miscellaneous policy and the vehicle is defined as an Ashok Leyland rig unit. The claim pet...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. E. Shanthi Vs. Dr. H.K. Vasudev
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant417; ILR2005KAR4981
ORDERManjunath, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Both of them are Doctors by qualification. The respondent is working as a Medical officer in a Government Hospital. The respondent has filed a divorce petition in MC. No. 57/2001 on the file of the Family Court at Mysore. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming an interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/-. The said application is dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the petitioner is also attending as a Doctor in 'Hariharan Clinic', which according to the respondent is a very famous clinic in Chennai. This order is called in question in this writ petition.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the name of the petitioner appears on the board of Hariharan Clinic as one of the consulting Doctors and the said name appears along with her brother prior to marriage and even though she is no...
Tag this Judgment!B. Fathima Vs. S.M. Umarabba and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-2005
Reported in: II(2007)ACC613
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. A lorry loaded with wooden logs came to the saw-mill for unloading. The deceased in M.V.C. No. 430/1990 was working in the saw-mill. The lorry had also carried the loaders in the lorry for the purpose of unloading.2. The lorry loaded with wooden logs was parked on a down-gradient surface for the purpose of unloading. The rope tied as a grip to the wooden logs for safety was untied by one of the loaders negligently. A heavy wooden log fell on the deceased who was near the lorry for the purpose of unloading. The mother of the deceased is the petitioner.3. The deceased apart from being an employee, is also a third party in law since he was not an inmate of the lorry at the time of accident. The accident occurred when the lorry was in use. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the lorry are liable to pay the compensation. The dismissal of the claim petition is bad in law.4. The compensation as per multiplier system would be less than Rs. 1,50,000. This Court in the case...
Tag this Judgment!Pro Lab a Partnership Concern and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka Rept ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR475; [2006]144STC33(Kar)
R. Gururajan, J.1. All these Writ Petitions are referred to the Division Bench, by a Learned Judge of this Court in terms of an order dated 3.3.2004. All these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. Facts in W.P.Nos. 8602 and 8603-24/2004:The petitioners are carrying on the business at different places within the State of Karnataka. They are registered as dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The Petitioners operate photographic studios and are engaged in providing service to customers for processing and supplying photographs, photo prints and photo negatives. The petitioners submit that Section 5-B of the Act provides for levy of tax on the taxable turnover relating to transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contracts that are specified in the 6th Schedule to the Act. Entry No. 25 of this Schedule as it was enforced up to 6.9.1999 specified works contracts relating to 'processing and supplying photographs, photo print...
Tag this Judgment!Sarfaraj Nawaz C. Loni Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ137
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. All these petitions are taken up together for final disposal.Petitioner-Sarfaraj Nawaz Loni is before me seeking for a writ of declaration that Rule 3(1)(d) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Professional Institutions Rules, 2005 as being arbitrary and ultra vires to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner seeks permission to appear for counselling to be conducted by the second respondent in II-B category. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to refund or adjust the tuition fee paid by the petitioner for the academic year 2004-05.1.1 Petitioner completed his Pre-University examination with 69.33%. He appeared for the GET held in May 2004. He was selected and he was suceessful. He selected a seat for I year MBBS Course in JJM Medical College, Davanagere through counselling held by the second respondent on 13-9-2004 in IIBG/K category with the ranking of 4872. Petitioner joined the college. However, on 30-...
Tag this Judgment!Putlabai Vs. Vaijnath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Kant419; ILR2005KAR5155; 2005(6)KarLJ369
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Sedam, in RA. No. 140/2002 dated 25.2.2003 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chincholi, in O.S. No. 29/1978 dated 30.9.1999 and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for injunction holding that the suit for bare injunction without seeking for declaration of title is not maintainable.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 29/78 seeking for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. The suit schedule property comprises of three items of landed properties and a house as described in para-2 of the plaint.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that Ningappa was the owner ...
Tag this Judgment!Doddaballapur Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Rep. by Its M.D.) Vs. Regional ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR527]; (2006)ILLJ835Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. These two writ petitions are taken up for consideration together, as common question of law is involved though the impugned orders are different.2. The petitioner is a Textile Spinning Mills having around 146 permanent workmen on its rolls. They are in the business for the last 37 years. Because of recession in the textile industry it is facing severe financial crisis for the last seven years. The petitioner owes the Corporation Bank Rs 72,95,000-00. They are unable to clear the ESI and PF dues. The accumulated loss of the company is to the tune of Rs. 2,02,67,767-00 as on March 31, 2003. The Company stopped production intermittently for want of raw materials. It could not run the mill, with the result production was stopped totally from March, 1999. They approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short BIFR). Their application was registered and the petitioner was declared as a sick industrial company under the provisions of Sick Industr...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gourawwa Vs. Hanumagouda Basappa Kodigoudra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4971
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2002 passed in R.A. No. 76/99 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Ranebennur, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.10.99 passed in O.S. No. 56/95 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Hirekerur, and consequently dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that it is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.2. The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows:The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 56/95 seeking for mesne profits of Rs. 15,000/- from the defendent with interest and costs. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had filed O.S. 2/77 against the defendant for declaration of his title in respect of the land bearing No. 137/A of Divigihalli Village measuring 20 guntas assessed at 2.20 p and for permanent injunction against the defendant. During the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Kar)450
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is directed against the order dt. 11th Dec., 2000 passed by the Settlement Commission functioning under Chapter XIX-A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), an order which is at an intermediate stage and even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, at the instance of the CIT, Karnataka.2. The impugned order is according to the petitioner not proper or one which virtually seeks to assume jurisdiction by the Commission when it could not have done so under the statutory provisions, particularly, under Section 245C(1) of the Act and, therefore, the need for the petitioner to test the correctness or otherwise of such an order as an order involving interpretation of the provisions of Section 245C(1) of the Act.3. The brief facts leading to the petition are that the respondent No. 1--scheduled bank had filed its return for the asst. yrs. 1994-95 to 1999-2000. The assessment orders had been passed by the AO upto the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jeelani Mosque Committee (R) Vs. the Shimoga Urban Development Authori ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5819; 2006(2)KarLJ579
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner aggrieved by the cancellation of the allotment of a site by the 1st respondent, and the subsequent allotment of the very same site to the 2nd respondent, followed by the execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement, is before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction.2. Briefly stated, facts not in dispute are:(i) The Petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, incorporated on 07.12.1990 with the objects, preaching Islamic principles, promote education, establish madarasa, amongst other objects as set out in the Memorandum, Annexure-B.(ii) The layout plan Annexure D for formation of a residential layout in the name of 'Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia'. was accorded sanction by the State of Karnataka, at the instance of the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, for short CITB, on 27.01.1987. The 1st respondent authority was constituted on 25.09.1988, consequent upon the notification, duly gazatted, extending the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »