Karnataka Court July 2006 Judgments

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. J.M.D. Fashions

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR621]

H. Billappa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.1.2001 passed by the El Court in E.S.I. Application No. 1/2000 allowing, the application filed by the respondent herein.2. The appellant claimed contributions on conversion charges and job work entrusted to the outside establishments for stitching for the period from 1992-1994. The said order was challenged by the respondent herein before the EI Court in E.S.I. Application No. 1/2000. The Court below, by its order dated 27.1,2001, has set aside the said order.3. Aggrieved by that, appellant herein has filed this appeal.4. The learned Counsel for-the appellant contended that the EI Court was not justified in holding that outside establishments are not immediate employers.5. The EI Court, placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and also of the Supreme Court, has held that outside establishments are not immediate employers under Section 2(13) of the Act. In view of this, in my considered view...

Sri C. Radesh S/O C.N. Keshava Murthy Vs. Sri Jayantilal Chandulal Kot ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision is by the landlord aggrieved by the rejection of the eviction petition filed by him in HRC 200/2002. Eviction petition was filed under Section 40 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 by the landlord seeking for possession of the vacant open space measuring 40 x 80 ft. bearing No. 14, Situate at I Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore for his bonafide requirement2. After filing of the petition, during pendency, respondent filed an IA under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d), CPC to reject the plaint After hearing the parties, the trial court has dismissed the eviction petition filed by the landlord while allowing the application filed by the respondent Hence, this revision.3. Heard the counsel for the respective parties.4. The trial court after enquiry and after hearing both sides has noted that it is admitted that the open space mentioned in the schedule was let out to the respondent At the time of letting out the open site there was no structure on the vacant she...

Vikrant Tyres Limited represented by Its General Manager (Personnel) V ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)SLJ352(NULL)

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The facts of the case are:The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of tyres. The petitioner had employed over 2000 workmen and over 400 officers. The petitioner has a canteen. This is as provided and required under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). During the period 10.6.1984 to 9.7.1986, me said canteen was said to have been run and managed by a contractor by the name of Somayaji G. On 3.9.1986, it appears, the said contractor was murdered outside the factory gate. The workmen employed by the contractor were arrested and thereafter, the contract having been terminated even prior to the death of the contractor, the workmen engaged by the contractor were not allowed into the factory premises, as the petitioner claimed that there was no relationship of 'master and servant' as between the petitioner and the said workmen. The workmen had raised a dispute that there was illegal termination and sought rein...

Bhanuprakash a S/O Ananda Rao and B. Murugesha Rao, S/O B. Kamalaksha ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4292; ILR2006KAR3216; 2006(5)KarLJ64

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The revision petitioners are convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act (for short 'The Act'). Challenging the judgment of conviction and the order sentencing the accused for rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/-, both the accused are before this Court in this revision petition.2. It was alleged against the accused that on 15.06.1993. accused Nos. l and 2 cut and uprooted sandal wood tree in the Government land and made 71 sandal wood billets worth about Rs. 14,000/- thus committing an offence Under Section 86 of the Forest Act. It was further alleged that they were found transporting the said 71 sandal wood billets in a Maruthi Van near Saragodu without valid license and committed an offence Under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. Both the Courts have held that the offence alleged against the accused Under Section 86 was not proved whereas the offence alleged Under Sect...

Veerabhadrappa Dandappa Hanchinamani and ors. Vs. Nannesab Goususab Pa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3794; 2006(6)KarLJ496

H.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), Ranebennur in RA 33/1989 reversing the finding of the Prl. JMFC, Ranebennur in OS 11/1985 filed by nearly fourteen plaintiffs against the defendants seeking for a mandatory injunction in respect of the suit schedule way.2. According to the plaintiffs, they have got property in different survey numbers and the portion in which the property has been encroached by the defendants is a public way and the said encroachment has been causing inconvenience to them to use their land and in that capacity, they have together filed a suit seeking for the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction and to remove the encroachment The defendants contended that the suit was a frivolous one and the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and also denied the entire averments made in the plaint According to them, no way was available on the ...

Shamanna Setty Vs. B.L. Channegowda

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3588; 2007(5)KarLJ494; 2007(2)CivilLJ525

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The respondent herein was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3438/1980 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. He filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of his title, possession and for mandatory injunction and also for mesne profits. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on merits on 8-1-1988. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 8-1-1988, the respondent - plaintiff had filed an appeal before this Court in R.F.A. No. 361/1988. The Learned Judge of this Court on 25th September 1998 allowed the appeal in part and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remitted the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to appoint a survey Commissioner at the instance of the plaintiff to locate the properties covered under the sale deeds and then to dispose of the matter in accordance with Law. This Court also directed the parties to adduce further evidence if any. With the abov...

K. Abdul Hameed Vs. Smt. Sabira Begum and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2006Kant289

N. Ananda. J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 145/1990 on the file of the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial Judge has declared that plaintiffs-1 to 5 are owners of the suit schedule property and defendant has been restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit schedule property.2. In this appeal, parties will be referred to by their array before the trial Court.3. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:(i) The defendant is the husband of first plaintiff; their marriage was performed on 12-7-1976; plaintiffs 2 to 6 are their children.(ii) The defendant purchased the suit schedule house from BEML Employees Cooperative Society; the plaintiffs are in possession of the same; first plaintiff had made substantial contribution for the construction of the house, so also her father late Mohammed Sarvar Sab; during the year 1983 i.e., on 2...

Ravi S/O Sharanappa Dalawai Vs. the Karnataka University by Its Regist ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ192

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The facts of the case are:The petitioner is a Post-Graduate in M.A. Sociology and belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. He has also passed National Educational Test (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.E.T' for brevity) conducted by the University Grants Commission and the eligibility test for lecturership called as S.E.T. conducted by the University of Pune. The petitioner has registered for a Ph.D. Degree in Sociology under the faculty of Social Science and is yet to complete the Doctorate. Respondent No. 1 is a University governed by the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). The respondent No. 1, by a Notification dated 5.10.2002 published in the Daily Newspaper 'Samyukta Karnataka', invited applications for several posts, including two posts of Lecturer in Sociology. One post of Lecturer in Sociology at the P.G. Centre, Belgaum was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category and one post of...

Shri Mallikarjun Ningappa Ragati, Vs. the State of Karnataka Through C ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ509

1. There is no appearance for the appellants when the matter has reached and taken up for hearing though the appellants have appeared through their Counsel and the cause-list indicated the name of the learned Counsel for the appellants. There was absolutely no representation on behalf of the appellants when the appeal had reached for final hearing. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants did not turn up to argue the matter though we waited for quite some time. This appeal being of the year 2003 and there being no representation on behalf of the appellants, we had no other alternative except to proceed with the matter in the absence of the learned Counsel for the appellants for the reason that we cannot dismiss the Criminal Appeal for default. It is needless to point out that the Criminal Appeal cannot be dismissed for default and it has to be disposed of only on merits. Under the circumstances therefore, to be fair to the appellants, we thought it just and proper to appoint an...

B.C. Ramachandra S/O Chikkashetty Vs. State of Karnataka by Channaraya ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007CriLJ475

ORDERB.S. Patil, J1. The revision petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable Under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for different periods and to pay fine for the aforesaid offences. The judgment and order convicting the accused, having been affirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, the revision petitioner is before this Court challenging the same.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.05.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. on Bangalore - Mangalore Road near old bus stand of Chennarayapatna town, the accused drove the fire engine bearing registration No. KA-01-G-8093 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against Bhyravesbwara hotel building and against a pedestrian by name Krishna who was standing in front of the said hotel resulting in the death of said Krishna on the spot and damage to the hotel Several others were also allegedly injured. The accused was charged for the offences Under Sections 279, 337 a...