Karnataka Court January 2007 Judgments
North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Division Vs. Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ1967; 2007(2)KLJ79; 2007(1)KCCR654; 2007(2)AIRKarR355
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The appellant-North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is aggrieved by the award of Rs. 2,33,522/- as compensation to the respondent-claimant. The grievance of the appellant is that the claimant has produced false bills to claim more compensation under the head of medical expenses and this is evident from a bare perusal of the medical bills produced by the claimant himself. Secondly, it is contended that the Tribunal could not have awarded compensation for loss of future earning capacity since the claimant has failed to show as to what was the loss suffered by him in his business following the accident and the disability. Therefore, the compensation is excessive is the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the earnings of the claimant was taken at Rs. 100/- per day as a coolie and, therefore, the loss of earning capacity awarded by the Tribunal is just and pro...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak S/O Khankdappa Bele Agriculturist and Sugreeva S/O Dhanappa Be ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ82
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J. 1. Petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 28.1.2003 in OS 25/2003 and OS 26/2002 at annexures H & J and to issue appropriate writ Petitioners are said to be owners in possession of property in Sy. No. 23/1 measuring about 5.09 acres and Sy. No. 23/2 measuring about 5.07 acres situate at Shiroor Village, Gulbarga. According to the petitioners, they have filed a suit in OS 312/2001 which was subsequently renumbered as OS 25/2003 and similarly OS 314/2001 was renumbered as OS 26/2002 seeking for a declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the respondents viz., Wakf Board and other persons. It is their case mat one Mahalappa was the grandfather of the 1st petitioner who had three sons by name Khandappa, Danappa and Ladappa. The property in question is an ancestral property which was registered in the name of Mahalappa in the record of rights in the year 1932 and alter his death, the name of Khandappa was entered as he being the eldest...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatesh Murthy S/O Late Dr. S.V. Srinivas Rao Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR882]; 2007(3)KarLJ246; 2007(3)KLJ246; 2007(2)KCCR877; 2007(2)AIRKarR130
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the letter/endorsement dated 19.11.03 issued by respondent No. 3 as per Annexure 'B' and also for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider him as an Ex-service man of the Indian Armed Force and to declare that he is entitled to all the benefits and facilities extended to the Ex-service man of the Indian Army.2. The petitioner joined the service as a storekeeper in Grade-1 on 23.3.1964 in General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) at Roorki. He served for 30 years till the end of May 1994 and after his retirement settled at Bangalore. Thereafter, he approached the sub-area, Bangalore, to provide him canteen facilities as per the army headquarters letter dated 12.4.90. Although, the said facility was denied till the end of July 1998, subsequently, by virtue of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the year 1997 the benefit of canteen facility was extended during t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ramaswamy Raju S/O Late Venkata Raju Vs. the State of Karnataka, R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(2)Kar1358; 2007(1)KLJ664; 2007(2)KCCR870; 2007(2)AIRKarR223
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The Grama Panchayat of Kothanur within whose territorial limits, the petitioner was an ordinary resident, when merged with the City Municipal Council, Bommanahalli, (for short 'CMC'), by notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'Act), was nominated as an additional Councilor of the CMC by order dated 22-06-2005 Annexure-'A' of the State Government, in exercise of power under Section 360(d) of the Act. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the State Government by order dated 15-02-2006 Annexure-'B' cancelled the nomination when reconstituting the CMC, in accordance with law. Hence, this petition.2. The petition is opposed by filing Statement of objections dated 16-12-2006 of Respondents 1 to 3, interalia contending that the nomination of the petitioner by the order Annexure-'A' was only until further orders and during the pleasure of the Government and the cancellation of the no...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthappa Vs. Ganapathi R. Kini and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2089; ILR2007(1)KarSN17; 2007(3)KLJ300; 2007(2)KCCRSN71; 2007(2)AIRKarR333; AIR2007NOC952.
V. Jagannathan, J.1. Dismissal of the claim petition filed by the owner of the goods vehicle No. KA 27-2694 (the appellant herein) is the cause for this appeal.2. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur dismissed the appellant's claim petition for compensation following the damage caused to his vehicle, mainly on the ground that the appellant can take the recourse to civil court by filing an original suit against the insurer of his vehicle and it is this finding of the Tribunal that is called in question.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the accident that occurred on 5.2.1998, his vehicle was damaged and he sought compensation from his insurer in a sum of Rs. 2,50,000, but his insurer paid him only Rs. 60,000 and hence, the appellant was constrained to move the Claims Tribunal claiming the balance compensation from the owner and insurer of the other vehicle which was involved in the accident. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal could not have dismissed the claim pet...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Financ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ210; 2007(4)KCCR2159; 2007(3)AIRKarR26(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is against Annexure-'A' order dated 4.5.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. No. 108/2006 and also Annexure-'B' order dated 1.2.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. No. 373/2005. Both the applications were filed by Sri. S.X.J. Vasan, respondent in this Writ Petition. The petitioners were the respondents in O.A. Nos. 373/2005 and 108/2006.2. The respondent is a Commissioner of Central Excise.While he was working as Additional Commissioner, he was transferred and posted as Additional Commissioner at Bangalore, on 12.8.2002. Later he was promoted as Commissioner on 5.11.2002 and was posted at Bangalore itself. Thus, from 12.8.2002, the respondent was working at Bangalore. On 27.4.2005, the respondent submitted an application for transfer to Chennai mainly on two grounds. The first ground was that his wife who is a Commissioner of Income Tax is working a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K. Mahadev S/O. Late Kenche Gowda, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2007
Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar863; 2007(2)KCCR1257; 2007(2)AIRKarR603(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The petitioner who claims to be an eminent Orthopaedic Surgeon, was a member of the Syndicate of the 3rd respondent University of Mysore. He has filed this Writ Petition as a public interest litigation challenging the decision of the respondents to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on five eminent persons who are not impleaded as respondents in the Writ Petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the Syndicate of the University originally recommended to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on four eminent persons, two of the four names were deleted and three other names were added by the first respondent Chancellor of the University. It is contended that the first respondent has only the power either to approve or to disapprove the names recommended by the Syndicate and that he has no power to add any new name. According to the petitioner, the action of the first respondent in adding three names which were not recommended by the Syndicate is contrar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›