Karnataka Court February 2008 Judgments

Parvathi Bai W/O Madhu Rao and Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. by ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ14; 2008(4)KLJ14; 2008(2)KCCR1070; 2008(3)AIRKarR339; AIR2008NOC1921; 2008AIHC2565(Kar)

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The legal representatives of deceased Venkatesh Rao, dissatisfied with the award of compensation in M.V.C. No. 10/2003 by judgment and award dated 4-6-2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, SCCH-7 (for short 'MACT), have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. There is no dispute that in an accident that occurred on 5-10-2002 involving a motor vehicle, Venkatesh Rao, aged 42 succumbed to grievous injuries leaving behind the 1st and 2nd appellants as his legal heirs who made a claim for Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for abort 'Act'). The claim was resisted by the 1st respondent - Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending motor vehicle, by filing Statement of objections.3. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed issues, recorded the evidence of the 1st appellant as PW-1 and another eye-witness by name N.V. Raghavan as PW-2 and marked 7 docume...

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its General Manager and Co ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(3)KarLJ612; 2008(3)KCCRSN194; 2008(4)AIRKarR77; AIR2008NOC2416; 2008AIHC2768

ORDERA.S. Bopanna, J.1. Common questions of fact and law arise in all these petitions. As such, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. In W.P. No. 46244/04, the first petitioner claims to be a public limited company engaged in the business of carrying Cargo from various ports in the country including New Mangalore Port The second petitioner is a registered steamship agent who acts on behalf of the first petitioner before the first respondent in matters relating to various ships and oil tankers operated in New Mangalore Port In W.P. No. 27521/04 and 27522/04. the petitioner claims to be a company involved in the business as a steamer agent for various shipping tines and ship operators in handling vessels which carry cargo from different ports in the world.3. The first respondent is constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (MPT Act for short) to administer New Mangalore Port Trust, which renders various types of services to the ship owners and other port...

K. Shivaram Shetty Vs. State by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Ce ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3307; ILR2008KAR2876; 2008(3)KCCR1364; 2008(4)AIRKarR192

ORDERR.B. Naik, J.1. Since these two Revision Petitions arise out of the same order, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by common order.2. Crl. R.P. 355/2000 is filed by Mr. K. Shivaram Shetty-A. 1, and Crl. R.P. 269/2000 is filed by Smt. Veena Sabharwal-A. 2 and M/s. Sabson Freight Containers Pvt. Ltd., which is arrayed as A. 3 of which A. 2 is the Managing Director.3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that A. 1-K. Shivarama Shatty, while working as Executive Director and as then chairman & MD of Vijaya Bank during the period 1989-90, entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat Vijaya Bank in securing various credit facilities to A. 3 - M/s. Sabsom Freight containers Pvt. Ltd., and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, A. 1-K. Shivarama Shetty committed criminal misconduct and by corrupt, illegal means and by abuse of his official position got sanctioned various credit facilities, such as packing credit, clear cash credit, DPG facility, import letter of credi...

Shri Hari Mills Pvt. Ltd., a Company Reg. Under the Companies Act Rep. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant205; [2009]148CompCas81(Kar); 2009(2)KarLJ268; 2008(4)KCCR2505; 2008(6)AIRKarR103(DB)

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31.01.2008 in Writ Petition No. 17135 of 2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition.2. According to the averments in the memorandum of writ appeal, the appellant No. 1 is a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act Appellant No. 2 is the Director of appellant No. 1 - Company. The respondent filed a false and vexatious suit as O.S. No. 100 of 1995 in the Court of First Additional Civil Judge, Chitradurga seeking recovery of certain amounts from the appellants. The appellants filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. One of the contentions raised in the written statement is that in view of the proceedings pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act}, the legal ...

Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. State Bank of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]315ITR278(KAR); [2009]315ITR278(Karn)

Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri G. Sarangan, senior Counsel along with Miss. Vani, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue against the order dated August 9, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Interest-tax Appeals Nos. 16, 17 and 18/Bang/1997, for the assessment years 1993-94,1994-95 and 1995-96. The appellants raise the following substantial question of law:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the income received by the assessee by way of interest on securities does not form chargeable interest for the purpose of the Interest-tax Act?3. The assessee is a banking company. In respect of the assessment year 1993-94 a return of income as per the provisions of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as 'the Act'), was filed. The matter was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer was pleased to hold that in accord...

Savita Gupta W/O A.S. Guptha and Vs. Infant Advertisers (P) Ltd. (a Re ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 25th October 2003 passed on Interlocutory Application filed by respondent under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, on the file of the learned XVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-16), have presented the instant revision petition.2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, the respondent herein - plaintiff had filed a suit for bare injunction against the petitioners-defendants restraining them from committing breach of the terms of two Lease Deeds dated 10th August 2001 executed by them leasing the schedule hoarding to the plaintiff-respondent Company and also had prayed for an ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants or their agents etc under them from removing, dismantling, defacing, obstructing display of advertisements or allowing third parties from carrying on display causing obstruction in respect of the schedule hoarding a...

Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. represented by Its Company Se ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(4)AIRKarR83; 2008LabIC(NOC)930(Kar)

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed on 06.01.2006, 07.02.2007 and 22.09.2007 by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 16/2001 produced at Annexures 'P', 'S' and 'T'2. The facts leading to this case are:The respondent - Union sought for reference of dispute in terms of the Government Order dated 23.04.2001 in respect of the following Issues:1. I Are the MCF Workers Union Justified in placing the following demands as listed down In Annexcure-1 vide their letter dated 18.1.2001 against the management of MCF Limited.2. If not, to what relief the workers are entitled to?II. Are the Management of MCF Limited, Mangalore justified in demanding from, the workmen,(i) That the workers should agree rationalization and manning norms as per the recommendations an closed in Annexure-2 (by Prolf. T.S. Nagabhushan)(ii) That the workers should participate in training programme chalked out by the management without demanding overtime allowance,2. If not, t...

ibrahimsab S/O Hussainsab @ Hassansab Tharthari, Chairman Chingisha Da ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners in these two petitions are assailing the correctness of the order dated 26.3.2004 bearing No. KWT;BAG;SR;9A/02 passed by the Presiding Officer, Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belgaum, dismissing the revision petition and confirming the order dated 21.6.1997 passed in LCC No. 2/88, on the file of the Law Committee of Karnataka Board of Wakfs, Bangalore.2. Learned Counsel appearing for first respondent in C.R.P. No. 730/2004 had filed an application under Section 151 of CPC on 29 10.2003 before the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Belgaum Division, Belgaum 4th respondent herein to reject the appeal as not tenable in law. The said application has been filed by first respondent at the stage when the matter is posted before the 4th respondent for hearing IAs I and II i.e. an application filed under Order 41 Rule 10 read with Section 83 of the Wakf Act 1995 for staying the operation of the order dated 21.6 1997 bearing No. LCC 2/1988 by the Law Committee of the Karnat...

Syed Mudir Agha Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Principal Secretary an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR1722; 2008(5)KarLJ378; 2008(3)KCCR1419; 2008(3)AIRKarR394

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner is the Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission, the second respondent herein. The said Commission is constituted under Section 3 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He was appointed by the order dated 5.10.2007 passed under Section 4 of the Act. The term of office prescribed under the Act is for a period of three years from the date of appointment, which is 'subject to the pleasure of the Government'.2. On 9-10-2007, President of India promulgated President's rule by issuing proclamation under Article 356 of Constitution of India. After promulgation of President's Rule, the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka issued a Note dated 12.10.2007 instructing all the Principal Secretaries to Government to request the non-official Chairmen of all the Corporation/Bodies to resign and surrender the official vehicles attached to them immediately. Copy of the said Note...

United India Insurane Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Office Now R ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009ACJ524; ILR2008KAR2580; ILR2008(2)Kar2580; 2008(2)KCCR1166; 2008(4)AIRKarR75; 2008(4)CivilLJ461; 2008AIHC2765(Kar)

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. Though this appeal and cross-objection are listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.2. The insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the fastening of the liability to pay the compensation by the judgment and award dated 30-07-2005 in M.V.C. No. 1385/2002 of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & Addl. MACT, Belgaum (for short 'MACT'), has preferred this appeal while the cross-objection is preferred by the claimant-injured, the 1st respondent for enhancement of compensation.3. The challenge to the impugned judgment and award by the insurer of the offending motor vehicle is grounded on non-liability to pay the compensation as the claimant-injured is a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods carriage, while the cross objection is over the quantum of compensation as inadequate. In that view of the matter, applying the law laid down by the Division Bench of this C...