Karnataka Court April 2008 Judgments

First Flight Couriers Limited Represented by Its Deputy General Manage ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009(121)FLR20]; 2009(1)KarLJ372; 2008(6)AIRKarR188

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. W.P. No 41994/2003 is filed by the Management. W.P. No. 47252/2003 is Sled by the Union.2. In both the writ petitions, the award dated 21.12,2002 in ID.No.29/1999 has been called in question.The Union has questioned the award against the rejection of the claim and substitution of the settlement in place of the award.The Management has questioned the award only in so far as extending the benefit, of settlement to the members of the Union without they subscribing their signature to the settlement.3. An issue WHS referred by the Stage Government under Section 10(i)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, interalia 'as to whether the charter of demands submitted by the Union are lawful'. During the pendency of the dispute, most of the members of the Union entered into a settlement in relation to charter of demands as per settlement dated 02.09,1999. The copy of the settlement is produced at Annexuere.4. In view of the settlement between the Management and most of the m...

K. Narayana Nayak Vs. Sri M. Shivarama Shetty

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3635; 2008(6)KarLJ756; ILR2008(3)Kar3635; 2008(3)KCCR1569; 2008(4)AIRKarR398; 2008CriLJ3411

K. Ramanna, J.1. The appellant/complainant has come up with this appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 16051 /99 dated 7/2/2002 thereby dismissing the complaint filed by him against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The trial court dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant mainly on the ground that there was no legally recoverable debt under the cheque and that there is no proper service of statutory notice on the respondent.3. Heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the records.4. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that non-denial of the issuance of the cheque by the respondent conclusively establishes existence of debt and that the cheque has been issued in discharge of the same. He pointed out that when the notice was sent by RPADUCP by properly addressing, pre-paying posting stamps and cover containing necessary do...

The Management of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Limited Vs. P. Sh ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3165; 2008(6)KarLJ12; (2009)ILLJ666Kant; 2008(4)KCCRSN324; 2008(4)AIRKarR377; 2008LabIC(NOC)1000(Kar)(DB)

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. With consent of learned Counsel appearing on both sides, appeal is heard for final disposal.2. An order of termination dated 14.6.1999 issued by appellant against respondent, having been held to be bad and the direction issued by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court ('CGIT' for short) to reinstate him to his original post, which was modified by the learned single Judge, has been questioned in this writ appeal.BACKGROUND FACTS:3. Appellant invited applications from the eligible candidates, for making appointments to various posts in its establishment. Respondent filed application dated 19.11.1996 for the notified post of Industrial workman Grade-I (Trainee). In the application, respondent with reference to column 10, furnished the details as follows:Work experience (as on 01/11/1996) acquired after securing prescribed minimum qualification (to be supported by copies of certificates from concerned organisation).Name (o) with full Date Ex...

Sir Srinivasa S/O C. Muninarayanappa and ors. Vs. C. Muninarayanappa S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(4)AIRKarR410; 2008AIHC3000(Kar)(DB)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,), Bangalore District, Bangalore, In O.S. 495/2005, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit on 25.7.2007, on the ground of the same is barred by principles of Res judicata.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to, with reference to their ranks in the trial Court.3. The question which needs to be decided in this appeal is, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that, the decree passed in O.S. 213/1995 in favour of 4th defendant - Smt. C. Munlyamma, against 1st defendant - Sri C. Muninarayanappa, would operate as Res judicata In the subsequently filed suit of the palintiffs' against the defendants?4. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), reads as follows:11. Res judicata. - No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and subst...

Astral Polytechnik Limited Represented by Its Chief Finance Officer Vs ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR2533; 2009(3)KarLJ623; 2008(3)KCCR1957; 2008(5)AIRKarR198; AIR2008NOC2538

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the second defendant in OS 27080/2007 challenging the order passed on an interlocutory application under Section 22(4) of the Indian Designs Act, 2000 wherein the trial court has refused to transfer the suit to the High Court.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court.3. The plaintiff M/s Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd. , filed a suit against M/s Vijay Steel Tubes and Fittings Private Limited, for a declaration that the defendants or their men are not entitled to manufacture, sale, use or offer for sale, the PVC Pipes and fittings produced with the list to the plaint, manufactured by the defendants, which infringes the rights, benefits and privileges granted under the Design Registration No. 203491 and Design Registration No. 203492 by the Patent Office of the Government of India in favour of the plaintiff and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from applying, copyin...

Govindaraju Vs. the Executive Officer and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008(3)Kar3231; 2008(6)KLJ242; 2008(3)KCCR1849; 2008(6)AIRKarR45; AIR2008NOC2567

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner belongs to schedule caste and he is having an authorisation to run the fair price depot at Vokkodi village. A show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner why an. alternative arrangement should not be made in regard to 261 cardholders out of 281 cards assigned to the petitioner. The above show cause notice was issued on the ground that out of 281 cards assigned to the petitioner's shop, 261 card-holders were not willing to purchase kerosene and food grains from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, had filed an appeal before the Director of Food and Civil Supplies. The Director of Food and Civil Supplies by his order dt.17.7.2006 allowed the appeal and the order passed by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat was set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the authorities to permit him to lift the food grains to supply t...

Nagaraja S/O Late Kariappa Vs. Lakshminarayanamma W/O Late M. Kondanna ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgement and decree dated 28th February 2003 passed in S.C. No. 1790/2001 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.2. The case of the petitioner herein - plaintiff is that, deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah, husband of first respondent herein and father of minor respondents 2 to 4 herein, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as loan from petitioner for improving his business in hair dressing-cum-shaving and in consideration of having received the said loan, late Kondanna/Kondaiah had executed a demand promissory note and consideration receipt in favour of petitioner agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 21 % per annum and the said transaction was witnessed by two witnesses. The deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah died a year ago without discharging any part of loan or interest during his life time and however, he has left behind considerable properties and that, the respondents 1 to 4 being...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Sri Ningappa Basavantappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3256; 2009(3)KarLJ439; 2008(3)KCCRSN218; 2008(5)AIRKarR160; AIr2008NOC2596; 2008(4)CivilLJ856

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order date 31st May 2003 passed in Miscellaneous No. 119/2000 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bijapur.2. The facts in brief are that, the land bearing R.S. No. 411 measuring 06 acres situate at Kakkalameli Village, Sindagi Taluk, Bijapur District was notified and acquired by State Government through petitioner for the purpose of construction of approach road at Indi, Indi Taluk, Bijapur District. Petitioner herein, after taking into consideration all the relevant factors available on record, has passed the award dated 18th March 1991. Not being satisfied with the award passed by petitioner on the ground that, the same is inadequate, respondent herein has filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking enhancement of compensation dated 12th July 1991 within ninety days from the date of receipt of the award notice under Section 12(2) served on 24th April...

Sri Venkatarayappa Vs. Sri G. Muniyappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR3553; 2008(3)KCCR1551; 2008(4)AIRKarR261; AIR2008Kar163; 2008AIHC2922(Kar)

ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. In this writ petition, legality of the order dated 01.02.2005 passed in Execution Petition No. 18/2002 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chintamani has been questioned by the decree holder/petitioner. Respondents 2 to 9 are the judgment debtors. Respondent No. 1 had filed IA No. 6 under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC in the execution case to adjudicate his right to the suit property by holding an enquiry.2. Brief facts necessary for consideration and disposal of this writ petition, as could be gathered from the record are:Petitioner had instituted O.S. No. 113/1987 in the Court of the then Munsiff, at Chintamani, for decree of permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 2 to 9, which was decreed on 25.03.1995. The said decree was questioned in RA No. 13/1995 which after hearing was dismissed on 07.12.2001. Petitioner has filed Execution No. 18/ 2002 to take action against respondents 2 to 9, alleging willful disobedience even after the decree for per...

Sharada W/O Bhandayya Swamy, Vs. Huchappa Chaluvadi S/O Kuppanna and

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009ACJ1272; 2009(2)KarLJ538; 2008(4)AIRKarR386

1. Appellants, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of I.M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 16,60,368/- from the respondents due Lo the death of one Bandayya Swamy in a mad traffic accident. Claim petition was contested by respondents. After holding enquiry under Section 168 of the M.V. Act, Tribunal has passed judgment holding that the deceased has died due to sustaining of injuries in the accident, which occurred on 28.04.2003, due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer by its driver, that the same was an actionable wrong and the appellants are entitled to be compensated. Consequently it has awarded Rs. 5,59,792/-as compensation with interest. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, this appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement.2. Sri F.S. Dabali, learned Counsel appealing for the appellants contended that, Tribunal has erred in computing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, even though there was no dispute with regard to gross sa...