Karnataka Court July 2007 Judgments
The Disciplinary Authority and Superintending Engineer Vs. Sri H.V. Na ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR282]; ILR2007KAR3299; 2007(6)KarLJ180; 2007(4)KCCR2247; 2007(5)AIRKarR518(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 14:09.2006 in writ Petition No. 41799 of 2003 which was allowed by the Learned Single Judge. The appellant is the respondent in the writ petition which was filed by the respondent herein.2. The Writ petitioner H.V. Nagaraja was an employee of the Mangalore Electricity Supply Company. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and an enquiry was ordered into certain charges against him In the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer it was held that the charges against the writ petitioner were not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority passed Annexure-D order dated 06.09.2002 'ordering for re-enquiry'. In Annexure-D order,' the Disciplinary Authority observed that during the enquiry, the then Executive Engineer failed to produce documentary evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner and that the petitioner was held not guilty on account of the non-production of the documentary eviden...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. K.S. Prakash and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ509; [2008(119)FLR627]; 2008(3)KCCR2073(DB)
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. One Anil Kumar, the deceased, was employed as an attended under respondent No. 1 (private medical practitioner). On 13.10.1995 the respondent No. 1 (employer) directed the deceased workman at about 11.30 p.m. in the night to carry the drug load on the motor cycle from the clinic to his residence. The deceased while driving the motor cycle met with an accident and died. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased made a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,13,570. Insurer of the motor cycle is directed to pay the compensation, hence the insurer is in appeal.2. Substantial questions of law that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as follows:(a) Whether the entrustment of motor cycle by the respondent No. 1 to the deceased workman for the purpose of his clinic work is within the expression of 'engaged in driving of the ...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Manjunath Vs. Smt. Pushpa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC617; ILR2007KAR3441; 2008(1)KarLJ287
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. This is a husband's petition calling in question the order dated 29-06-2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 101/2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Davangere directing payment of Rs.800/- per month to his wife and Rs.700/- per month to his minor son, towards maintenance from 15-04-2006, in addition to Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.2. The destitute wife and minor son filed Crl.Misc. 101/2006 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month alleging that the petitioner - husband had refused to maintain them though the petitioner had a monthly income of Rs.20,000/. That petition was opposed by the respondent in so far as it relates to the quantum of income, while admitting the relationship. The Trial Court, in the premise of the pleadings of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 the wife, vis-a-vis the evidence of RW-1 the petitioner and the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-7(a) and Exhibits R-1 to R-2, reco...
Tag this Judgment!Sri H.R. Krishnamurthy Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR3507; 2007(6)KarLJ182; 2007(5)AIRKarR519(DB)
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. The challenge in the writ petition is against the order dated 03.07.2007 passed in I.A. No. I of 2007 in Application Nos. 3154 and 3155 of 2007. Though notice has been served on the respondents through hand summons there is no representation for the 3rd respondent. Government Pleader appears for respondents-1 and 2.2. Having heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that the impugned order is contrary to Rule 4(4)(a) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986. Rule 4(4)(a) of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986 provides as follows:(4)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), the Tribunal may permit, -(a) more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause of action and the nature of relief prayed for that they have the common interest in the service matter.The above quoted rule...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sharatkumar Desai S/O Late Dr. Narhar Rao Desai Vs. Kusumakar Desa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: ILR2008KAR1652; 2008(5)KarLJ138; 2008(2)KCCR731; 2008(2)AIRKarR511; 2008AIHC2057(Kar)(DB)
1. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Court below.2. The deceased first respondent made an application Under Sections 270, 276 and 307(2)(I) of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate and also for removal of the restrictions imposed in the Will for disposal of the properties mentioned in the Will, in particular the house property called 'Badarikashrama' and the open space appurtenant to the said house.3. The material facts are as follows:Late Sanjeev Rao Desai executed a Will in question bequeathing properties in favour of his children. The deceased 1st respondent is one of the sons and named as an executor in the Will. One Greeshma kumar the eldest son of the testator was also named as an executor in the Will. The said Greeshma Kumar gave up his right to act as an executor. Therefore, the deceased 1st respondent was the sole executor. The 1 respondent wanted to sell a plot adjacent to 'Badarikashrama' which is the subject matter of t...
Tag this Judgment!H. Basavaraj Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ654; 2007(5)AIRKarR507
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner, questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 30th August, 2006 passed in Revision Petition No. 137/2005-06 by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore vide Annexure-Q, and to hold the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents-authorities to continue the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land in Survey No. 9 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situate at Krishnarajapuram Village from the agricultural year 1994-95 and onwards.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 28836 of 2003 seeking a direction to the Deputy Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore to consider the representation submitted by petitioner vide Annexure-F therein and direct the respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in ...
Tag this Judgment!Xavier Ferrao S/O Anthony Ferrao and Celsestine Ferrao W/O Anthony Fer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KCCR2249; 2007(5)AIRKarR523; AIR2007NOC2436
V. Jagannathan, J.1. The plaintiffs before the trial Court are the appellants herein and they are aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed by them by the trial Court and the said judgment and decree of the trial Court also being affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. The suit was initially filed by the appellants seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent herein in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property comprising survey No. 501/8B1 measuring Order 14 acres.2. The facts required for the purpose of this appeal, briefly stated are to the effect the appellants herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 8/1985, for permanent injunction against the defendant/ respondent herein by taking up the stand that the appellants are the absolute owners in possession of the suit property having acquired the same under the registered sale deed dated 19.1.1984. Later on defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the appellants' suit property and therefore, the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Regional Office, Represent ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1158; 2008(1)KarLJ4732007(5)AIRKarR325; AIR2007NOC2285.
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. These appeals are heard together, as they are preferred against the same award. The former is by the insurer and the latter by the claimants.2. The facts of the case are - the claimants are the mother and brother of the deceased victim of a motor accident. The deceased was riding a motor cycle registered in the name of his brother, when he was said to have been fatally knocked down by a lorry, that did not stop.In the claim for compensation brought against the insurer of the motor cycle, the insurer had contested the claim and disputed the liability, on the grounds that the risk of a rider of a motor cycle is not covered and that the owner and insurer of the offending lorry were not made parties. Inspite of this defence, the Claims Tribunal having found the insurer liable to pay the compensation, the insurer is in appeal.3. On the other hand, the claimants in their appeal are seeking enhancement of compensation.4. The appeal by the Insurer is considered first, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, A Co-operat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ187; (2008)IILLJ193Kant; 2007(5)AIRKarR402
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The counsel for the parties were heard at length.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner, Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Societies Act, for brevity). The Government of Karnataka holds 90% of the share capital in the said society. A ginning and pressing factory at Hubli, is a unit run by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, the Dharwad District Employees' Association, is said to represent workmen engaged by the petitioner at the said unit.The ginning factory, established in the year 1976, was intended to support cotton growers and traders in the area. The operation of the unit was seasonal, as it could operate only during the season when cotton was made available. Hence there was no need to employ a large contingent of permanent employees. When the unit was operational during the season, workmen...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa @ Kr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: ILR2007KAR4214; 2008(1)KarLJ336
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath. J.1. Alleging disobedience of the judgment and decree passed by the Vth Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No. 9611/1998, the present contempt petition is filed. The complainant, who is the plaintiff in the said suit had prayed for decree of permanent injunction against the respondents who are alleged to be the contemnors. The said suit was heard and by the judgment dated 01-10-2004 allowed and by the decree the respondents - contemnors were restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. It is the grievance of the complainant that inspite of such decree, the respondents are causing obstruction and are not permitting the complainant - Society to carry on its day to day work in the formation of layout.2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant, in our view, as the decree passed by the Trial Court is executable, contempt cannot be remedy for the execution of the decree. In this regard, the learned Counsel has relied upon the tw...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »