Karnataka Court July 2007 Judgments

Smt. Shubha B. D/O Late Sadasiva Vs. the General Manager, Bharath Sanc ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ315; 2007(3)KCCRSN201; 2007(5)AIRKarR307

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner claims to be daughter of one Sadasiva who was working as group-C employee in the respondent No. 1 - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, who unfortunately died while still in service as on 18.10.1999.2. It appears at that time the petitioner had indicated that she had no objection for giving appointment to her brother. The employer it appears had considered the case of the petitioner's brother for appointment on compassionate basis, but had turned down the request of the petitioner's brother as it was of the view that the petitioner was employed in a private company etc.,.3. It appears thereafter the petitioner had sought for appointment on compassionate basis for herself which also came to be rejected by a communication dated 28.1.2002 and this writ petitioner questioned the same by filing writ petition No.13393/2002.4. In terms of the order dated 26.7.2006, this court was of the view that the order did not indicate any reason and therefore the mat...

Dundappa Mahadevappa and Smt. Shamala W/O Dundappa Mahadevappa Vs. Nag ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Substantial questions of law:i. Whether the mother of the deceased if not a widow is not a dependent in law and not entitled to compensation?ii. Whether the WC Commissioner committed error in assessing the wages of the deceased at a lower rate at Rs. 2135/- per month on the basis of minimum wages which is perversely contrary to the evidence on record?2. The provisions of Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are extracted hereunder for convenient reference.(d) 'dependent' means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely:(i) a widow, a minor (legitimate or adopted) son, an unmarried (legitimate or adopted) daughter, or a widowed mother; and(ii) if wholly depending on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm;(iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death:(a) a widower,(b) a parent other than a widowed mother,(c) a minor illegi...

S. Jahanara W/O. S. Abid Rep. by Her P.A. Holder and Husband Sri. S. A ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ42; 2007(5)AIRKarR83:AIR2007NOC2229.

ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. The petitioner in filing the instant C.R.P. had challenged the order dt. 3-3-2003 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chickmagalur (henceforth referred to for convenience as the Trial Court), on I.A.No. 28 in O.S.No. 76/1985 filed under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.2. Before proceeding further, I set here below the relevant facts of the case:The petitioner - plaintiff had filed originally a suit in O.S.NO. 76/1985 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 3.12.1982 and further permitted the petitioner - plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in court and on failure of the petitioner- plaintiff to do so the trial Court shall execute the sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in the name of the petitioner - plaintiff. Earlier the petitioner - plaintiff had executed an agreement of sale to sell the suit schedule property for sale consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/-.3. The trial Court, on contest, decreed the suit ...

Sri Akbar Gudusab Sanadi Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its State Publi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR3498; 2007(6)KarLJ593; 2007(5)AIRKarR279; AIR2007NOC2235.

ORDERA.S. Pachhapure, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Chikodi, in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2000 dated 12-01-2005 confirming the judgment and order passed by the JMFC, Sankeshwar, in C.C. No. 772/1999 dated 14-03 -2000 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable Under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC and Section 134 read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and awarding the sentence.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision petition are asunder:It is on 25-12-1998 at about 4.30 p.m., the complaint came to be lodged by Sri. Vijayakumar PW.1 the conductor of the MSRTC bus bearing registration No. MH-20 D-3114, alleging that on the date of accident in the evening at about 6-15 p.m., the bus bearing No. MH-20 D-3114 in which he was the conductor was proceeding from Belgaum towards Nippani and near Kanagal Village, the Tempo Tracks bearing Registration No. KA-23 M-4301 came from the opposite dire...

Sarojamma W/O Narasaiah Vs. K.M. Venkatesh

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR3309;

ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. At the request of the learned Single Judge, large number of Civil Revision Petition have been referred to this Bench by the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. Though the referral request of the learned Single Judge does not indicate as to what is the order of reference or what question of law is required to be decided by a Division Bench, since after hearing the learned Counsel appearing in these cases, it appears to us general principles in so far as jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts entertaining a suit for ejectment, as laid down in few of the decision referred in this order, requires consideration.3. As no specific referral order and question for decision is formulated by the learned Single Judge, we have taken his case as a lead case and discussed the scope, jurisdiction and enquiry of Small Causes Courts in entertaining a suit for ejectment, carved out of the exception to the schedule under Small Causes Courts Act. The sequence leading to t...

Precision Interconnect India Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under t ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. These two petitions are taken up together for consideration and ore disposed of by a common order, as the scheme of amalgamation which is proposed and approved in both these petitions are one and the same.2. The petitioner in Company rotation No. 57/2006 Precision Interconnect India Private Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) waft incorporated on 15.2.2000 in the State of Karnataka under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Its registered office is situated at 'TE Park', 22B, Doddanakundi, 2nd Phase, Industrial Area, White field Road, Bangalore-560018. The authorised share capital of the transferor company is Rs. 21,00,00,000/- (Rupees twenty one crores only) consisting of 2,10,00,000 (Two crores ten lakhs) equity snares of Rs. 10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the transferor company is Rs. 19,94,03,250/- (Rupees nineteen cranes ninety four lakhs thr...

theresa Vas W/O Late Edward Bas Vs. Allan J. Veigas S/O Lawrence Veiga ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KCCRSN213; 2007(5)AIRKarR381

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal is by defendant No. 3 before the trial Court and the said appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No. 85/1989 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, (Lower Appellate Court) reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1979 passed in O.S.No. 12/1973 by the trial Court.2. The facts in brief are to the effect that one Isabella Veigas had two sons and one daughter viz. William Veigas, Lawrence Veigas and Juliet Mathias. The said Isabella settled the suit schedule properties in favour of her son Lawrence Veigas and wife of the said Lawrence Veigas viz. Mrs. Mildred Veigas in equal moiety keeping life interest as per the registered settlement deed and she also made provision for her daughter Mrs. Juliet Mathias by paying suitable dowry and bequeathing some land to her son. Lawrence Veigas, who was the father of the plaintiff in the suit, settled his share of the property which he got from his mother in...

V. Krishnaswamy and anr. Vs. the Karnataka Rajya Kaigarika Sahakara Ba ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant20; ILR2007KAR4740

ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. In both these writ petitions the petitioners are questioning the action of the respective respondent banks in initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstitution of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitisation Act')3. The facts in W.P. 23813/05 are that one M/s Hi-tech Industries is a registered partnership firm. It is stated to have borrowed monies from first respondent Karnataka Rajya Kaigarika Sahakara Bank Niyamitha, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore (for short 'Co-operative Bank'). The case of the first respondent bank is that the said firm has committed default in payment of loan amount and consequently a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 1.1.2004 was issued. Suffice it to say that an order under Section 13(4) of the Act was passed, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B, which was t...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Srikant Pundalik Banakar and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ468

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making in these petitions, with the consent of the learned AGA for the petitioner, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.2. Respondents though served with notice of the petitions, have remained absent and are unrepresented.3. Facts not in dispute are:The state in exercise of eminent domain power, acquired immovable properties being house sites with buildings belonging to the respondents, amongst others, to wit for Upper Krishna Project, by issuing notifications under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'Act'. One of the persons interested, aggrieved by the determination of the market value in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer had his representation referred to the Civil Court for higher compensation which when numbered as LAC No. 999/1999 was clubbed with four other reference applications of other interested persons, and the Civil Cou...

Mr. Mohammed Iqbal Vs. Mr. Mohammed Zahoor

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR3614; 2008(1)KarLJ338

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. Since common question of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this common order.2. Facts in brief are: Respondent instituted SC 15043/2004, 16234/03 and 16233/03 for recovery of money from the petitioner. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant borrowed Rs. 50,000/- on 30.12.2001, as hand loan agreeing to pay Rs. 1000/- until the principle sum was repaid. The defendant's bank cheques drawn on Union Bank of India, Shivajinagar branch, when bounched, impelled the plaintiff to institute the suits as well as proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.3. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and exhibited 11 documents Exs. P-1 to P-11 while the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and another witness as DW-2...