Karnataka Court October 2006 Judgments

The Managing Director, Vijayanand Road Lines Limited Vs. Kasimsab and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR332]; 2008(2)KarLJ173

V. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Sri Somashekar for the appellant.2. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in imposing penalty on the employer when there is a policy in force as on the date of the accident. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner could have waived the penalty being imposed and no reasons are given for not doing so. It was further submitted as the vehicle in question was covered with an insurance policy which was in force, the Commissioner could have imposed the penalty on the insurer but not on the employer.3. Having regard to the above submission and after perusing the order of the Commissioner, I do not find any merit in the contention put forward. So far as the imposing of penalty is concerned, the law is settled by this Court in a decision rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Smt. Jevaramma and Ors. 1988(1) Kar. L.J. 462(DB) : 1988 ACJ 671 (Kar.)(D...

Shri Vishwanath Son of Narse. Vs. the Land Tribunal, by Its Chairman.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ643; 2007(1)KCCR207; 2007(1)AIRKarR435; 2007(1)KantLJ643

K. Ramanna, J.1. This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated 28.3.89 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belgaum, in Kangrali B.K./S.R.16 whereby the Tribunal confirming the occupancy rights in the joint names of respondents 3 to 5 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 100 and 64/2 measuring 1 A. 33 G. and 11 A.36G. respectively. The assailing the same he has come up with this Writ Petition.2. The case of the petitioners 1(a) to 1(d) are that they are the wife and children of late Vishwanath. Initially, the petitioners being the L.Rs. of deceased Vishwanath filed an appeal before the District Appellate Authority, Land Reforms, Belgaum, in R.AX.R. No. 16/1990 under Section 118(1)(a) of the K.L.R. (Amended Act) 1986 mainly on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law and violation of principles of natural justice and equity in appre...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep by Its Deputy Manager Vs. Umadevi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007ACJ1114; 2007(3)KarLJ267

V. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant-insurance company has called in question, the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents in respect of the death of one Dhananjaya @ Jayanna in a road accident. The Commissioner after examining the material on record awarded a sum of Rs. 2,03,850/- as compensation and fixed the liability on the appellant-insurance company. The grievance of the appellant is that the deceased was neither a cleaner nor a conductor in the bus in question and there is absolutely no evidence placed to the effect that the deceased was a conductor, and in that capacity, he was going in the bus.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was, in fact, a conductor in the bus and therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference.4. Learned Counsel Sri. A.M. Venkatesh for the appellant also submitted that no licence was also produ...

Mspl Ltd., a Company Registered Under Companies Act, Rep. by Its Execu ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: IV(2007)BC124

V. Jagannathan, J.1. In all these appeals the question involved concerns invoking the bank guarantees and the respondents moved the trial court for recovery of money due to them only in respect of O.S. No. 49 and O.S. No. 50 of 2005 in respect of the contract entered into between the parties and an application was filed seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. by the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant filed an application for vacating the injunction under Order 39 Rule 4 of C.P.C. The trial court allowed the I.As. filed by the respondent-plaintiff and restrained the appellant herein from invoking the bank guarantees and further directed the respective parties to keep the bank guarantees current and valid till disposal of the suit. It is this order of the trial court restraining the appellant herein from invoking the bank guarantees that is called in question in all these appeals.2. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that though two of the appeals ar...

Sri Abdul Rashid S/O Mohammed Hashan Soudagar Vs. Smt. Suganda Kamalak ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ437

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This Regular First Appeal is by the plaintiff in OS No. 29 of 1997, on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Sirsi, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits.2. The plaintiff had sought for recovery of the possession of the suit schedule property and for damages for the use and occupation by the defendant on the premise that though there was an agreement dated 1-5-1989 [ExP1] between the parties, by which the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 69,000/-, the plaintiff had repudiated the contract with the defendant for not performing his part of the obligations under the contract and therefore the plaintiff was not only entitled for possession but also for the mesne profits from the date of repudiation of the contract till the date of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.3. Learned trial judge, taking the view tha...

T.N. Gowramma W/O T.N. Shivashankar Vs. T.N. Shivashankar S/O T.A. Nar ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)ACC793; 2007ACJ417; 2008(1)SLJ177(NULL)

V. Jagannathan, J.1. One T.N. Gowaramme, the mother of the deceased Shivashankar is before this Court, in this appeal, questioning the dismissal of the claim petition filed by her before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tumkur.2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the Commissioner has dismissed the claim application on the ground that the appellant was not dependent upon her deceased son.3. I have hard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondents are absent.4. It is submitted by Sri Patil D. Karegowda, learned Counsel for the appellant, that no doubt the appellant did state before the workmen's Commissioner that she has been living with her husband and for the purpose of compensation, she has stated that she is residing away from her husband.5. However, the Commissioner could not have given undue importance to the said statement of the appellant because as a mother, the appellant was dependant upon her son to some extant, if not de...

Mungi Brothers Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2008]296ITR665(KAR); [2008]296ITR665(Karn)

R. Gururajan, J.1. The appellant is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of processing raw cashew nuts and selling them. The purchases of raw cashew nuts are made through its sister-concern namely M/s Abhiruchi Departmental Stores in Belgaum and thereafter in another premises the processing is carried on. The premises in which M/s Abhiruchi Departmental Stores carries on its business is located in a place in the city of Belgaum to which the growers of the cashew nuts normally come and sell their products. For the year 1992-93, the assessing authority added a sum of Rs. 16,05,000 by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the IT Act (for short, 'the Act'). These payments were issued to M/s Abhiruchi Departmental Stores. The assessing authority, noticing various cash payments contrary to the provisions of law, has chosen to proceed against the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an unsuccessful appeal before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was subs...

Bharath Agro Services and Suppliers Rep by Its Prop. P. Ramachandra Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006(4)KarSN28; 2007(1)AIRKarR612(DB)

ORDER1. Petitioner is before us in this revision petition. Petitioner caused entry of rigid PVC Pipes, fittings for agricultural use amongst others during the relevant period. The assessing authority passed orders of assessment and levied tax on the said commodities as per Entry 54 of the notification dtd 30-4-1002 holding that it is an article made from plastic. Unsuccessful appeals were filed before the Joint Commissioner and later before the tribunal. Petitioner in these circumstances is before us.2. The following questions of law were framed by this Court on 13-8-2003 for consideration;a) Whether the appellate tribunal is justified in applying the technical and scientific test to classify PVC rigid pipes as an article of plastic when it is generally treated and understood in trade and commerce to carry water to fields for irrigation purpose?b) Whether is justified in classifying in Entry 54 of the notification ED 69 CET 92(1) dtd 30-4-1992 instead of entry No. 1 of Second Schedule ...

Smt. Sujatha Narayana and ors. Vs. Smt. Leela Ramakrishna and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioners/legal representatives of defendant 1 in O.S. No. 826 of 1993 on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore City are before this Court challenging the common order dated 2-9-2006 made on the applications filed under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and under Sections 11 and 18 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (in short, 'CFSV Act, 1958').2. Heard Sri D.R. Sundaresh, learned Counsel for the petitioners.3. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition may be stated as under:A suit was filed in O.S. No. 826 of 1993 for partition and separate possession to the extent of l/9th share each. After the death of defendant 2 (mother of the plaintiffs), the plaintiffs amended the plaint and prayed for declaration that they are the absolute owners of item 2 of A' Schedule property and also the properties under the registered sale dated 1-7-2002 executed by their mother. After the plaint wa...

Gopal S/O Mayappa Jadhav and Krishna S/O Mayappa Jadhav Vs. the State ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR135; 2007(1)KarLJ76; 2007(1)KCCR435; 2006(6)AIRKarR495

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing on both sides and perused the material on record. The petitioners have sought for quashing the acquisition notifications issued Under Section 17 and 19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'KUDA Act' for short). Since the common acquisition notifications are assailed and as the common questions of facts and law arise for consideration, these writ petitions are taken up for final healing together and are disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners' lands are acquired by the State by issuing impugned notifications for the benefit of Belgaum Urban Development Authority ('Authority' in short) which is constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act 1987 ('KUDA Act' in short). By passing the resolution dated 09.06.2000, the 'Authority' proposed to acquire lands to the extent of about 50 acres for formation of residential layout for its prop...