Karnataka Court August 2005 Judgments

Sri B. Venkoji Rao and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Prl Secretar ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4294; 2006(6)KarLJ585

ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (for short, the Tribunal) dated 20th December, 2002 passed in Application Nos. 6631 to 6643 of 2001.2. The background facts leading to the filing the Applications before the Tribunal, in brief, are as follows:The petitioners herein were initially appointed as Reserve Police Constables in the establishment of the Karnataka State Reserve Police (KSRP). According to the petitioners, before their appointment, they were subjected to practical training in the Central Jail printing press and on successful completion of the training they were posted to serve in the printing press as Police Constables (Printing). It is common case of the petitioners, the official respondents and the private respondents that till the year 1981 the cadre strength of various cadres of the printing press was not fixed. For the firs...

Smt. Emilya D'Silva and Ors. Vs. B. Naveen Manden and Anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2006)ACC276; [2006(108)FLR861]; ILR2005KAR5855; 2005(6)KarLJ460

Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. The appellants herein are the widowed daughter and grandchildren of a deceased workman. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dakshina Kannada Sub-Division, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner' for brevity), after considering the claim petition, which was contested by the respondents, held that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the deceased workman and the first respondent, but however, dislodged the claim of the appellants, since they do not fall under the definition of 'dependents', under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. The substantial questions of law that are framed in the above appeal for consideration of this Court are as follows.-'1. Whether the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dakshina Kannada Sub-Division, Mangalore, is justified in disallowing the claim made by the appellants in full by not including widowed daughter who was being maintained by a workman during...

J.V. Lobo Vs. D. Padmanabha Kumar and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2006)ACC492; 2007ACJ911; ILR2005KAR5384

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The Shop of the petitioner in MVC No. 725/93 is damaged in a motor vehicle accident. The Insurance Surveyor has assessed the damage at Rs. 5,400/- towards the cost of repairs. The petitioner claimed Rs. 1,05,000/- towards the cost of repairs. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove the ownership of the building.2. The view taken by the Tribunal is untenable. The appellant-petitioner is obviously an occupant of the building and he is running business. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maintain an action for the damage caused to the building and the damage caused to the property in the building. There is no other rival claim disputing the right of the petitioner to seek compensation. The possessory rights of the petitioner is sufficient to enable for maintaining the claim. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to go into detail about the Proprietary rights of the petitioner over the building. It is sufficient w...

J. BenjamIn Vs. the Management of Bharat Earth Movers Limited, Kolar G ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR625]; ILR2005KAR6024; 2005(6)KarLJ514; (2006)ILLJ975Kant

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In these two writ petitions the same award is challenged by the petitioners to the extent they are aggrieved. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in W.P. No. 37333 of 2000.2. The petitioner was appointed as mechanic helper B on 25-11-1969 in the respondent-establishment. On 19-4-1986, while examining the vehicle, accidentally he fell down from the top of the vehicle as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries and fractures. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital for medical treatment. The petitioner was a member of ESI Scheme and he was treated for a period of eleven months in the ESI hospital. He also took medical treatment as an outpatient at NIMHANS for a period of six months. On 15-5-1989, the petitioner reported for duty along with fitness certificate issued by a Competent Doctor on 4-5-1989. He was refused emp...

Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited Vs. Governmen ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(109)FLR673]; 2005(6)KarLJ596; (2006)ILLJ947Kant

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioners in all these petitions are challenging a notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'the Act'), abolishing contract labour in certain sections of the petitioners.2. Since the facts and law are common in all these petitions, this common order is passed.3. W.P. No. 3576 of 2002.--Petitioner-Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Bangalore is formed on the pattern of Anand Co-operative Society (Amul) in the State of Gujarat. It works in three line systems i.e., petitioner-Society as an apex body, District Co-operative Milk Producers Union at District level and Primary Dairy Co-operatives at village levels. Petitioner-Society and the district milk unions are administered independently having its own Board of Directors and having separately registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Milk producers supply milk at society le...

Venkatappa S/O Late Muniyappa Vs. Usha Rani D/O Late Mahomed Jahangir,

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ270

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the Addl. sessions Judge, Fast Track court No. IV, Kolar, on I.A filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., whereby, the learned Session Judge has rejected the said application. Therefore, the petitioner herein has come up with this criminal Petition mainly on the ground that the order passed by the Court in rejecting the application filed by him under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to permit him to adduce further evidence by producing the voter list is illegal and incorrect. The Revisional Court has got wide powers like an Appellate court including the power to take additional evidence and documents. If the said documents are very much required to decide the issue, it is the further contention of the petitioner that the first respondent married one Sheriff. But the Trial Court namely the learned Magistrate, wrongly assessed the evidence. The Revisional Court hag not ente...

The Management of North-west Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bel ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR4984; 2005(5)KarLJ568

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The respondent was a driver working at Bailhongal Depot of Belgaum Division, NWKRTC. On 14-2-1995 while on duty enroute Belgaum-Bailhongal he caused a fatal accident at about 13.30 hours near Hirebagewadi. He was served with an articles of charge accusing him of rash and negligent driving which resulted in an accident in which three persons lost life and 20 passengers sustained injuries. The respondent gave a reply denying the charges. Not being satisfied with the said reply an enquiry was initiated. Petitioner examined witnesses in support of their case and also produced eight documents which were marked. Respondent contended that the reply given by him to the charge-sheet has to be taken as his evidence. As there was an obligation cast upon the Enquiry Officer to put questions to the delinquent in the event of his not examining himself, he was questioned and his statement was recorded in which he stated the accident arose on account of breaking of front right side...

V. Narasimhaiah and anr. Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ678

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by persons, who had been granted land to an extent of two acres in old Sy. No. 153 (New Sy. No. 208) of Hoodi Village, Bangalore South Taluk, which on grant and proper survey was found' to be available only to an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas in terms of a grant order dated 22-2-1961 and the first sale transaction in respect of this land was in the year 1963 and the subsequent sale by the purchaser before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act') having failed and also being not successful before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal for getting over such orders the present petition.2. The 1st petitioner claiming to be a legal heir of the grantee, the 2nd petitioner had initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for action to invalidate the sale transaction. A sale deed executed by the grantee in ...

Bhawaribai and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2007)ACC917; 2006ACJ2085

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. All the appeals arise out of the same accident.2. Petitioner in M.V.C. No. 37 of 1995 was pregnant at the time of the accident and suffered abortion on account of the accident. Petitioner was inpatient for about 12 days in the hospital. The petitioner is a housewife; her income to be assessed at Rs. 1,500 p.m.3. In the case of abortion and death of foetus in the womb should be considered on par with the case of a death of a minor. This Court in Puttamma v. D.V. Krishnappa 2000 ACJ 103 (Karnataka), has held that for a death of a non-earning minor, the minimum compensation payable shall be Rs. 1,50,000. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 1,50,000 for abortion. The petitioner was further awarded Rs. 30,000 towards pain and agony. Medical bills are produced for Rs. 7,000. In all, petitioner to be awarded Rs. 15,000 towards medical expenses and incidental charges relating to treatment. For loss of service of petitioner to the family after abortion for a perio...

Shivaling and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10/5/1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Hukeri in case No.TNC/SR.No. 3487 and in No.TNC/SR.No. 2785 dated 10/5/1977 as per Annexure-A and B' in favour of one Bhima Dungappa Sukanahalli And Nagappa Satyappa, granting occupancy rights in their favour in respect of land SY. No. 127/9 A measuring 1 acre 15 guntas and land bearing No.l27/9B measuring 2 acres respectively. Both the lands are in Ankale of Hukeri Taluk.2. The main grounds urged by the petitioner No. 1 andL.Rs of petitioner No. 2 are that, they have filed Form No. 1 for grant of occupancy rights in their favour on 26/6/1983 as per Annexure-C in respect of the aforesaid lands as tenants when Inam Abolition Act 1977 was in force. But the respondents-4 to 7 filed Form No. 7 in the year 1974 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land of Shree Swami Jagadguru Shankaracharya Math as tenants. But the tribunal without verifying the records...